.f^" 


—  c 


^nvo.^,3.,r^ 


i^ 


r^ 


i 


ymm 


.u 


rT.) 


TITK     T.  VW     OF 

II  .    —  :  AN  1>    AM)     W  IFK. 


^jU 


TTir    T.AW 


in  -  i;a  N  i>   A  \  h   w  111 


n 


Mll*AND   ANU  Tin:   LMTlll*   vrAH-'s. 


DAVID    STl'.WAHT. 

im  AALTiMaaB ft*a.  Acraua  or  "  m>MiMtK  ash  mtoks. 


sviocEn  Willi  «x)MPaxy. 


I 


11^:^ 


ComimirT.  i«»^ 
Bv  OAVII)  MKWART. 


PKEFACi: 


This  rolnmo  and  thnt  of  tho  author  on  '•  Mrtrriapre 
and  Divon;*'"  aro  intoiuU>d  lo  covit  to^otlH-r  tlio  whole 
Hul>j<*«t  of  iiiarria^t*  and  inarria^o  ri^litn.  of  tho  rela- 
tioii  of  parfiit  and  child,  owiii^  to  its  liaviii;;  its  Hoiirco 
ill  iiiarriiiKc,  inort'  would  liave  Ikh'II  said  liad  tho 
iiia.H.H  of  law  ri'latiii>(  tu  tho  iiuiiu  Huhjii-t  proved  less 
fornildahlc. 

Marrinm>  ri^fhtM  have  wonderfully  <-hanuid  during 
tho  jm.Ht  twcnty-flvo  year*,  ami  in  no  tw<»  Mates  liavo 
the  elian^i^H  Ixwn  preelnijly  the  Maine.  Yet  it  in  |K)h- 
-il'le,  from  tho  authorities,  to  fornudate  ruleH  muIII- 
."•ntly  (^•ncral  to  l»o  of  ^n'at  aMMiMtancc  everywhere, 
iiid  it  ha-s  l)oon  tho  author's  obJtH-t  to  ^rive  sueh  rules 
rather  than  tho  law  exactly  a-s  It  exiNt.s  in  any  j»anicu- 
i  ir  State. 

I liseuHMionN  of  dinputoil  quextions  have  lM^>n,  as  far 

^    |K)HNihle,  avoided,  a   haro   statement    of   tho   points 

iiade  on  tile  dilferent  sides,  with  tite  authorities,  Iteing 

jiven.     As   may  Ik?  MtH?n   from  the   mode  of  citation, 

lie  cjises  have  been  iX'rHonally  examined  Jiy  tho  au- 

iior.     Harely,  however,  are  tlie  wonln  of  tiio  judges 

-noted,  it  iH'in^f  deenu'd  Ixntor  to  state  results  in  tho 

amplest  amd  le:ist  technical  lan>;ua>ro.     I/oose  expros- 

-lons  on  the  part  of  jndj^es  liav  done  as  mm-h  to  c<>n- 

fus«>    this    complicated    subj*^'!    as    loose    le^rislation. 

Indee*!,  words    have    Ik-oii  used    njost   rei-klcssly :   for 

a  widower's  estate 


vamplo,  in  tho  statute^  o^  Uliji'^Ui*  *^  ^^'i 


Vl  PREFACE. 

ill  his  wife's  realty  is  oalletl  "  dower"  ;  and  untold  con- 
fusion has  ri'sultetl  from  a  failure,  in  n|K'aking  of  niar- 
rifil  wonion's  "  sv.'par.ito "  proin^rty,  to  In-ar  in  mind 
the  distin<-tion  la'twivn  "tHjuitaijlo  "  and  "wtatutory  " 
separate  jiroperty,  Nothinj?  «t)ul«l  Iw  more  anomalous 
ihiin  the  condition  <if  the  law  of  husltand  and  wift>  in 
Maryland.  Pennsylvania,  and  most  of  tlu'  older  State<«. 
<;reat  superiority,  in  this  rcsi>oct,  is  noticcaldc  in  the 
laws  of  many  of  the  Middle  and  Western  Stales,  whieli 
have  iKfU  ably  and  intelligently  revised  or  «v.diJled. 

Analysis,  in  a  law  >>ook,  is  secoml  in  imi>ortanco  to 
nothinir;  and.  however  faulty  the  analysis  adopttnl  by 
the  author  may  1m\  it  has  l>eon.  in  the  treatment  of  the 
suliject,  riiiiilly  adhered  to.  lyopic,  however,  like 
everythini;  i-l-e,  fails  to  (-arry  one  safely  through  the 
intricacies  of  the  law  of  husband  and  wife.  In  tlic 
intioductor^-  chapter,  the  divisions  of  the  work  are 
given  and  explained.  Certain  i-hapterx,  such  as  that 
on  Houuvsteail  I*ro|M'rty,  In-long  only  indirnily  to  tlie 
subject,  and  are  not  exhaustively  treated.  Kvery  i>ains 
hivs  Iteen  taken,  however  —  even  n  little  reix'titlon  has 
l)een  d<H«med  iH'rmi.H.sible  —  to  enable  the  busy  lawyer 
to  lind  (piickly  any  iK>lnl  that  is  treated  nt  all  in  this 
book. 

DAVID  STKAVAHT. 

B.vLTi.MoiiK,  June  12,  ISSo. 


COXTKXTS. 


Pabt  I. — Introductory. 
CIIAPTKR  I. 

TIIK   SDBJErr   nKKINKD   ANP   niVTOKn. 

)  1.  Ilunbnnd,  wifo.  rhlMrfn,  th«»  miirrl<-<l  xtuH'. 

I  2.  The  r«'liitlon  <if  hn-tbimd  and  w\U: 

I  3.  Tli«'  <'titiit.-«  of  hiiHl.iiii.l  hikI  wiff. 

)  4.  Tlio  KtHtUH  "f  murrl.  .1  woman. 

{  &  The  n-lutlon  <>{  par.  iit  uiid  clilld- 

riiAiTKU  ir. 

HOrm-KS,    INTEnrUKTATIOX,    ANP   (ONFI.KTS. 

AUTICLK   I.  — SoCnCKS  OF  TIIK    T..VW. 

)    «.  ThP  common  Uw  and  English  ntututos. 

I    7.  The  rivll  liiw  mid  oo<lea. 

{    8.  Thr  i-qiilty  system. 

I    9.  Stntntos. 

{  10.  The  rcHUlUng  qa«»stloni«. 

Ahticle  II.  — Interpuktation  or  tiik  T.aw. 

{  11.  Intprpretfttlon  In  (jencral, 

{  12.  Uiilcs  of  Intprprplullon. 

I  1?.  <l<Mi«Tal  stiitutos  do  not  afToot  hnshand  and  wifp. 

}  H.  Married  women  not.s  do  not  iifTe.t  niarrliiKe  relation. 

{  15.  rroperty  iirts  do  not  nfr<'<t  personal  status. 

{  16.  Strlot  and  llheml  Interpretation. 

{  17.  Prospective  Interpretation. 

{  IS.  Local  Interpretation. 


Viii  CX>NTENTS. 

Ahtici-k  III.  — ^A•^^  AM»  Preskxt  Law. 

)  19.    Pro<ip«H'tlvi'  »n«l  rftHMpoctlve  Htnliitea. 

I  30.     All  «tiitii'.-^  i-ri-nn  f'lHr  pr'<«p»-'-llv<'. 

I  :l    I 

I  ZL.     I 

J  2a.     Jk  iri-i"'  '.:%  •    .tJi  ui.-..,  I  uii.ii. .    i»  i^ 

AiiTici.1-:  IV.— Hum K  a.m>  Fokkiox   Law. 

I  iv     y -•■  1  ■>»•  niiwt  Im-  pnivcd. 

I  3t.  titllcl  u(  UlWA. 

I  -• 
I2S. 
|3». 

I  ». 

i  ai. 

I  r.    1  ■  n»- 

I «.  —- 

I  »1       ,  f  w  II. 

J  »i. 

I  ST.     »  ■  ""•'•• 


1*\KT    11.  TlIK  RkLATION  of  HfRBAXP  AXU  "WlTE. 

<n.MTr.u  III. 

TlIK    VNITV    OK    m'SllANH    AXD    WirK. 

Ahtki.k  l.  — TlIK  FirTioN  ok  I'xitt. 

I  St.     I><'fliio<l  nii<t  •■spUtnot. 
{  S.    MlnrvlUuiotiuii  rratilUuf. 

AnTK  I.K     II.  — COXTHAfTS    BFrTWRKX     HUSBAXD     AXP 
WlKK. 

I  40.    CAiMmi  nm^Uii*  v»l|iUtr  of. 

I  41.      vt  ..,,,,,,,. .1)  Uw. 

I  4a.    I  Ilea. 


CONTENTS.  iX 

)  44.    AntPnnpUal. 

)  i.\    IIu»»mn.l  «n<«  wlf.-  im  «loM..r  nn.l  ir.dlti.r. 

AiiT.  TTI.  — WuoNos  Bctwkkn  llrsnvNO  am.  Wike. 

I  jC.     Cliowlrtwl. 
f  4H.    «1vll  wronirn. 
{  4'».    <'rliiiln«l  wrnnK*. 

AuTin.K  IV.  — WIM.X  lUrrwKKN  IIishank  am.  Wikk. 

I  JO.     Kff'H-t  of,  KfniTnlly. 

I  M.    Ml!i«'ll»nM>ii«  point*  ii«  I'.. 

.\RTin.K  v.— Srrrs  Betwken  in'snANi»  axi>  Wife. 

I  .li    s.-<>p««  itt  thH  nrtli-I«». 

I  .W.     Killi  - '"'""  '"'f' 

I  M.     Sii  ■ 

I  ,W.    Htil'  M  i)f  mnrriii«««. 

I  Mo.  I)«-(<'iiw«  In  nullw. 

I  M.    TcnUinony  of  Iui«»>mu1  tir  wlfi*. 


(HArrKU    IV. 
CONJfd.M,    lUUinx    ANP   oni.IOATloNS. 

AiiTin.K  T.— The  Sevkhai.  rovjufiAt.  Ku»iits  am> 

(HU.IOATIONS. 

,    ...  .  ..njiiirnl  HkIiU  nn.l  i.»itl«ntlon«  <W-fln«><l. 

I  :.*.  UUlit  '.f  l'»v.-.  ht.n.ir,  <<tr. 

I  .V«.  Ulk'liJ  nf  iniitriinonlal  oohnMt*tlon  nnd  lnt«Tconr»<'. 

I  m.  Hl«»<t  to  (Jx  fumllv  h..m«-.  nn.l  n-miliit^  houwhold. 

I  01.  HIb>>i  I<.  "<"  fnnillv  nnmo. 

.  n2_  H  '  iial  rnnt««ly  Bn<t  r*«tralnt. 

«  ,n  i;  ■utl  rhunttoenienU 

)  01.  IC.  rt. 

)  fvV  uiKliin.  p'Twoiil  m'rvlcwi. 

)  no.  I.ln»<lllty  In  tort. 

}  nr.  Mn'.llliv  In  mntrnrt. 

{  (».  Muhlllty  In  ••lime. 


\  CXINTKNTS. 

I  AX    OthrT  pcnmiinl  liKlitK  nnct  llnbllltloK. 

I  TO.    rrniMTty  ligliU  and  llAl>Ultl«>a. 

i  71.    Itlff  liu  and  obllffHtlons  m  to  children. 

AUT.     II.— .\tTIO>S   AUISIX(»    FKOM    COXJUOAI.   RlltltTM 
AXD    Oni.KIATIOXS. 

I  71    f<\i\tn  for  romlnitlon  of  conjiiKiil  rUflit*. 
)  7X    Hiilm  f..r.liv..ri  .•. 
(  71.    Mult»f«.r 

'>iin<1  in  lolniHl,  do. 


CII-VITKIt    V. 

CX>XJrc»AI.  AOKX^T. 

AllTUI.K   I.  — .^UKXCY    IlhrrWKKN    Hd^banp   AXnWMK 
IN   IJKNKIIAU 

I  MS.    In  Inw  Mid  In  tmrt, 

I  «.    Wx-WoM  of  the  nuliJiH-t. 

A«TI('LK    II.  — AOKNCV   OK    llfsllVNK    r<>u    WUK. 

\  M.    Appointment  of  husbiind. 

I  «a,   s.         •     •■     ■       •  ■     ■ 

I  ««.      Tr 

I  K.   r...  . 

I  M.    Rptrciai  tnatanf^cn  anri  Uiiutmtionii. 

AllTiri.K    III.  —  AOKNC'Y  OK  WlKK   mn   IlrsnAND. 

I  <o.  Ar'-  ■■•  .f  wife. 

I  00.  V  !ni!i|iiir  out  of  liiitthnnd'H  nhs^ncc,  otc 

I  01.  in  f  wlf.'H  «nnl  of  nullnifltjr. 

}  Oi  S<-.i|..i  of  wl(<  'k  iiiKliorlty. 

I  03.  Wtff  lu  husbond'R  iis«.>nt  In  btulneas. 


CONTEXTS. 

I  M.  Wlfi-  ax  liUHbuiid'ii  ugont  In  hoii<wholi1. 

I  95.  Wlfi-  lut  hiiHlmiul'H  ii««'iit  for  iieoi-ssjirli'^. 

I  96.  Authorltlex  om  to  nereHoarit's. 

{  97.  I'riMjf  of  wlfe'H  lateiicy  for  huslmn  ' 

{  98.  iX-tc-rmliiuUou  of  wife's  aj^ency  fur  Im^i 


CIIAITIIH    VI. 

POSTNUPTIAL  SKTTLKMKNTS —  I>KAI.IXOS. 

AnTICLE  I.— POSTSUPTIAL.  SKTTUKMKXTS  IX  (iKXERAL. 

I  90.    Tt?rtii  "po«tnii|>tlul  st'tUemPtit "  defliietl. 
{  lOa    Viill'l,  void,  aii<l  voliltailc  (H'tUemeiits. 
I  lOU    On  what  vullility  depvuda. 

ARTICI.K    II.  — KkUM    ok    POSTXCrTIAL    Sktti.emkxts. 

I  lOS.    Wlipn  formiilltli-nnri?  neri'Mury. 
I  103.    Vurlouit  forniit  of  ■M-ttlemiMit.t. 

Article  III.— CossinKRVTiox  in  Pohtxittial  Skt- 

TLEMEXTH. 

I  I(M.    X<'c«ii«lty  of  mimUlorntlon. 

)  lav    KliKlHof  >.. 

{  100.    A>U<)iiii'  itlon. 

I   IffT.      Kfftft  of  ;  .!!. 

)  ION.    MlAcellanvuiM  |m>iiiu  oh  to  conKlilprntlon. 

AllTICLK  IV.  —  FllAl'I*  IX   TosTXriTIAL  SeTTLEMEX-TS. 

I  100.  Krnu<l  In  liiw  an>I  In  fiiot. 

I  110.  Kriiud  li.-nvccii  the  purtU'S. 

{  111.  KriiUd  ikKiUiiHt  (-riKlltoni. 

{112.  Kvltleuce  of  frttUil. 

Article  V.  —  Riohts  of  Cueditous. 

I  11.1.  FniudiiliMit  convpyancos  (U'flned. 

)  in.  Ktatutt's  prot«'Ollng  creditors. 

{  115.  Who  arc  prot«'ct«Hl  an  creditors. 

{MS.  RlichlH  of  pxIstlnR  cr<-dltorH. 

I  117.  HiiclitM  of  Rul>H<-qufnt  creditors. 

I  118.  Property  ejcenipt  from  creditor's  rights. 


s^ii  CDNTKNTH. 

AllTULK   V!.  — POSSBSHION    OP    HUSBANP    AND    WllK. 

I  lU  a.  !Vim«iwlcin  of  haiibiuui  «nJ  wUc  gemrrmlly. 
)  tIB.    l»n-«uinpUoiu»  Inuu. 
I  13X.    CUaiiKe  of,  >■  rtellverv. 
)  ta.     RplviiUoii  of,  Ml  fruu<L 

.Vim(I.K   VII.— KkMKI.IKM  HKSfKtTISO  Postmttial 
.Strm-KMK.NTH. 

I  122.    In  RvneraL 
I  la    Of  p»rU««,  flc 
I  131.    Ofrrrdllom. 

AUTICLK    III.— rAHTHTLAIt    KiMW  OP  S»nTUKMKXT!*, 


•Ity. 

1 1 

J  r.-al  r«t*tP. 

A  '— 

i  IS.     I 

Paht  TTI.  —  Estates  of  HrsiiAy    'v.  Wirs, 
fllAlTKK    VII. 

ESTATK-S   OK    IirSBASn   AM'    WIKK,    IN    OKXKRAI- 
I  IS.    Trrm  •'♦^ii' 

I    IW.        J-t..t.   nil,    f 

j  ir.    .  ,  r..|H  rty  H»bl«. 

friAITKR    VIII. 

lltSBANn's    KSTATK    IN     HI"*    f'WN    PnOPKRTT. 

1  110.    A  husband*!  ctute,  bow  Umltc^  bj"  marrtace. 


OOXTKXTS.  xiil 

CHAITEH   IX. 

HrSBAXD'8   ESTATEH   IX    WIFE'S   KEALTV'. 

I  HI.  l'n<l<«r  r«>fnmi)f»  Uw.  ^ftI'*m<»nL<t,  and  matiite*. 

I  IC  DiiiiiiK  i*<iviTiiir«-.  iukI  HftiT  iliatli  or  divuive. 

I  143.  Ill  wKi-'R  i-9tnl*^  of  liihfrltaxK-t*. 

I  144.  Ill  wifi-'n  llfi-  cnUt)"!. 

(  I4&.  Ill  wife's  rtuoteUntU. 

Aitf     II.  — IIu»ba>M)'h    Ehtate   Dcrino   Covf.bti-re 

JCKE    UXORIH. 

(  14&  IliutlHUid'a  eatAte  ilurliig  ooTerture<l<-fIn<-<l. 

I  147  Iiirldi-iitn  of  llip  i>aUU4r. 

I  I4>«.  Wtff'ii  (•■t«(4ii  whk-li  ar*  aabject  to  tlila  entate 

i  I4».  VJTfrl  of  iwttl<>ni*>iitii  on  thl«  o^tut*-. 

I  lU.  Effrct  of  atatuu-a  uu  Ihla  t-atate. 

AUTICLE   III.— CURTEhY. 

I  ISI.  I><-fliilili>n«  of  rtirT»««T. 

I  I'Vi.  Cuiuni<ii>-t»M  r>-<|uli>lti  nof  riirtoajr. 

I  l.'A  MiirrluK*'  n'-<-<-»H«rv  l<i  n1v«»  rurtoiiy. 

(  l.%4.  Hlrth  uf  >iMu<-  nM-cfmary  lo  rIvp  oiirtoxy. 

I  I.VW  H^lalii  of  wMv  n<-r<f>aary  t«  rlvo  rurt<-<<y. 

(  ISa.  Death  fif  wife  iiei-eniuiry  to  iflve  rurteiiy. 

I  LIT.  I'roixTtv  In  which  c-urt<-«y  exLitn. 

I  I.W.  IiicMenlA  of  ifttAte  of  riirt«-sy. 

I  130.  HarrinK  and  defratlnit  uf  ciirttiiy. 

I  l«l.  Curt»-iy  under  Htatuten,  iretiemlly. 

(  l«l.  KfTi-i't  of  marr1e<l  wonn'ii  arlM  on  rurt<>ey. 

{  lei  R«troiipvcUve  ctTt^ct  of  Rtatiiti-«. 

CHAPTEH    X. 

iirsnAxn's  estates  in  wife's  i»ers<in.vi,tv. 

Art.  I.  —  Ilrsn.vNp's  Estate  is  Wife'  1*brsjoxalt\' 

ly    <iENK«AI-. 

I  Ita.    At  common  law. 
)  1«M.    In  i-qulty. 
)  l«VV     I'nder  ntatutea. 
B.  A  W.-». 


«n. 

in. 

17.\ 

.Vrtici.k 

IV 

XiV  CONTKNTS. 

AKTUI.kII.  —  PKIISONAI.TY    IN    POSSESSION, 

(  xm,  n«-fln<HL 

I  ifT.  I'tMsewilon  hy  wife. 

f  lAH.  p»— ftlon  by  htuhniKl. 

I  l>ci.  PfjMmiilon  by  thirl  iwraoii. 

i  17a  Boaband'a  rlftiu  in. 

ARTICLK   III.  — ("Hoskm  in   A<TH>N. 

C'lintti-lii  oot  of  p»»»«-«nUiii. 
K<iricl«,  stock,  n(>li'«.  •■!<■. 
I^-KhtIi-x.  •Ililrlhinlvc  >)inr<-ii.  <'t«-. 
UeiUBlndt-ni,  tMM«<ll>lll(l<-«,  <■!<'. 
)  17&.    Husband'a  rl«bt»  In. 

Rki>!'«tion  T<i  Po«««KhsIOX. 

I  ITT.  How  fnr  ■  (wnuinnl  rlglil. 

I  ITH.  Th«  tnt<-ntton  mxt  (111- Mil. 

I  17^  (icttlncc  p<m««m1ou  or  rwcflvliif  paynip'iL 

I  l«).  Hubntltutkin. 

I  I'-l.  AmU'inu'iit. 

I  K  R^li-aM. 

I  ina,  bulk 


CIIAITIIK    XI. 
VriFK's   KSTATK    IS    IIKIl   OWN    rilOI»KHTV. 

AicTici.K   I.  —  <;knkii.vi.i.y. 

I  1*4.    \Vlfi''<»(ii'inTi«l  |>ri>i»<-riy. 
I  IHi,    \VI(i''»  m-panitf  prnju-rty. 

ARTICLK  TI.  — PARArilKRNM.I.V    AN1>    PlN-MnXEY. 

I  t'Wl.  rnrnphornnlla  ciffltunl. 

(  1«7.  Inrlrlfntii  nf  pnniph<*rnAlU. 

I  1«.  I*1ii-mim«  y  d.-flni-*!. 

(  Un.  locklauu  of  plu-iuoiu-y. 


CONTENTS.  X" 

Articlk  III.  — Wife's  Equity  to  a  Settlement. 

I  im.  I>«*Aiiition. 

}  191.  By  whul  court  pnforoo<l. 

{  IK.  On  who««-  itppMi-ailnii  fiifnrr««d. 

I  V.O.  Out  of  wliut  |)fii|><Tly  ••rif«irr«-(L 

(  l!M.  I'nder  whi4t  ••lr<MiinHtnnc'«-<»  ♦•nfrirced. 

)  l!t\  Oh  whom  thi-  «-(tli-iiii-rii  i.s  aiailti. 

I  ItKl  Aiuouiit  uf  the  iM-ttliiiifuL 


('ii.vrrKU  xir. 

•wife's  EgriTAnui  sepauatk  estate. 

I!C.  Dtftilf'l. 

lift.  Crciitl'ni  of. 

IIW.  S«-ttlor'>i  liitont  to  oTflU'lc  tniMfmiii!. 

am.  Wonlii  wlilrh  hHuw  Micli  liiii'iit. 

301.  Trcwiit  uikI  fiitUD-  haHiudiK 

3DC  X«?ci-iwlty  of  trusttM-—  IfuiUximl  u.m  tniMtpe 

an.  Wlft^V  control  ovi-r. 

3>(.  Ri-ntmlnt'i  on  uJIcniitloii  oiid  ntitlclpntlori. 

yi\  Wife's  iKiwff  to  fllxiww.-  of  tiitfr  ii'i>.«. 

inn.  Wlfr'H  (MiWiT  loroiitnu-t  coni-tTiiliiK  —  UuIi'S. 

317.  WIf«''ii  jMiwiT  to  roiitrHot  coHotTiiliiit  —  Di'olslona. 

aw.  Wlfi'*)!  powtr  to  will. 

300.  Wlfc'n  liirhlM  III  Inrn'iiW'  —  Iti-nts,  proflta,  etc 

210.  Ki'IiumII  M  of  wife  coiirfrnliiK. 

211.  R<'infil|i-H  iiifiilii'<t. 

212.  KUrliis  iif  hii^rmiKl  mill  I1I1  rn-dltors  over, 

213.  llow  \imt  or  <'XtiiiinitHlie<l. 
2H.  EfTVTt  of  ilfiitli  ii|M»ii. 
2I.V  EITk-ct  of  illvurrp  upon. 
211.  Kfrit't  of  tuutliTii  iitututi'N  iipiiii. 


rii.viTKi:  .xrir. 

Wilis    NTATITOUV    .SKPAK.VTK    ESTATE. 

Akt.    I.  —  Wife's    St.\ti*tory   Sep.vuate   E.state   in 

(iENEUAU 

I  217.    Statutory  Rpp«ir«t<>  p«tat«*  il<'flii«*il. 

{  21s.    Tlic  Ktntiitfs  rtfsorlhefl. 

I  ;ii).    "  rropctiy,"  '■  pcraoual  rights,"  etc.,  UeflnetL 


^^.j  COSTKNTS. 

AUT.  ll.-SOVRCKSOF  STATITOBY  SEPARATE  PBOPKBTY. 

I  -rst.    M'hJch  of  BcquWtlon.  ic«>ner»U>-. 

{  21.    owi.  •'I  »l  Un>e  o(  ni»rrUi«e. 

I  in    Ar»iulr«l  In  any  oiMiner. 

{  ra.    Af<iulrtMl  by  purrba**. 

)  34.    Arqulr«Hl  by  nlft  ..r  crunt 

»  S:    A^^uir..!  ..r  .1-  '-  .  '"^"-t.  J^nt.  dlMrlbu.ion. 

I  SJB.     A  '     '  ' T     '    .'Kf. 

I  zr.    A 

I  jsi      ,^  -or  inwlf. 

I  23*.     Ac^quln^  by  ••^Hiiriict. 

I  2W.    At-qulnMl  by  lort. 

I  231.    Ac«iulr«l  jointly  with  hoaband. 


ABTIt'LE     11I.-1N<">KM^     oK    STATITOBY 
I'BOrK.BT^-. 


>«K.rAHAri. 


.  .  vie. 


I  231  N.>ct"iiirfty  nt  Inrfiuory  -  Prool  of  t  tli-. 

J  jo^  V  ..     >. .  r  ,.„.l  .-..ntr %  .  r.  it.-ii.T«Uy. 

I  2U.  1 

I  SSk.  J 

I  337  Wlfr'a  rontnu'ln  ronormlng. 

I  3»!  V    ■  • '  ,.i«  Rs  «K,uHnhl»  chi»nf<-«  upon. 

!  Z^  .  ..  tn  unilf-r  Btatulory  •uihorlty. 

I  «nx  \'   _  ■  .'f. 

)  Z4\.  \VUi''!»  n-nu-IW"*  ronr<Tnln«. 

I  2«.  li»hll»tl<'<i  of. 

I  :4.\    lUgbt*  of  huabanU  nml  liU  .-rMllt«>n»  In. 


rn.vPTT.n  xiv. 

TTIFE'S  EJrr.VTK  IN  IirsHANU'S  BKAI.TY  -  I->Wr.R. 

AHTi.  i.K  l.-NATruK  A>n  In.  inK>-n*«r  IHiwkb. 

)  244.  MoonlnK  "'  «ho  wonl  "  tlower." 

I  :4.V  Origin  and  hlMory  of  <1'iwi>r. 

J  246.  iX'w    '     '"^  '"*■  'I'-fl"'^ 

J  247.  IVi-^  stntuli-s. 


I  24v     rot. 


,.s  to  Jywcr. 


CO>fTENTS,  X\  U 

240.  R<>qiilHlt(><i  o{(luwor. 

IV).  Murrliu(i<  iw  n  reniil^ltf  of  itowc-r. 

1M.  Huntiuiicl'H  ilciitli  OH  a  n-qiiwtlU'  «>f  dower, 

i'li  nu!tt>uii<rii  wlnlii  an  n  rifiutallf  of  dower. . 

2M.  KIihIh  of  proiHTty  inihj<>*t  U)  ilowi-r. 

iVt  KIihN  of  <ittiit<tt  initiJi-<-t  to  dow«T. 

2X5w  iHw  ill-  «lot<-  |><tl  non  ililxt, 

iVl.  I><JW<T  III  «'<|lllt<lJ)l<>  <1lUlt  •». 

257.  Diiwi-r  In  purtiicmhlp  <i«liit««. 

2.V1.  iHjwi-r  niul  othiT  ••iiciiiiilinuiciii—  I*rloritl<»^ 

23l>.  I)ow«-r  uiiil  piirrhiuu'  nioiu-r. 

am.  T>.,w.r  In  111'  ..... 

;iil.  I>.i«    rlriin  I  foroclo»ur«>. 

»  '.SC  I><..\.  r  lnf.ir     -  r- 

'Jtrv.  IKiwi  r  tM-for<>  oiMlKnnwiit. 

,  y\t.  AwUciK"!  «l"wcr— IncldiMitn  .if. 

AuTH  i.K.  II.  — Hajirin*!  am>   Kkkkatino  ok   Ikjwer. 

{  yvi.  fj<'niriillr,  rwlouii  modon  of. 

J  ajd.  .'     ■  •'   '      ■•■   mi-nt  or  iurr'»ompnt. 

I  -jir;.  i  n-nt  or  iikTi'i'ini'iit. 

J  3i;h.  a  .  fori' mid  ifiirlnit  I'ovt-rturo. 

I  aaa.  Art  of  »•!(«•  <lurlnK  i-oviTtur<-. 

I  270.  Holoniioof  dowiT,  Ki'iKTnlly 

(  271.  Ili'li-ioto  of  dower,  piirtli-1.  coimliltTnt loll. 

J  27i  ll.-l.iis.'of  dow.T,  •■fr<-<t  of. 

I  273.  Joliiliirp,  li-Kul  ntid  fqiiituhlf. 

I  274.  I)«'vl»o  In  Mill  of  dowir. 

}  27\  Wldow'm'U>ctlon. 

I  270.  Entopiwl. 

I  277.  IJmlintlonn  nnd  liirhra. 

{  27S.  T>«'dli-iitlon  to  piihllr  iipii-n. 

)  27U.  T<-rniliiittloii  of  liiiHliaiid'B  (>iUat«>,  »t«^ 

(  'Hi.  \A-Kn\  procfcilliufH. 

(  2SI.  Hlvorrt'. 

J  'JC  llniikruptcy  of  hiiHl)an<L 

AuTHI.K    hi.  —  ASSIONMKNT   OK    DoWKR. 

t  28-1.  Tho  widow's  riKht  to  iiii  iu»tKtiiiu-nt. 

;  2H|.  Who  miiHt  iuwIrii. 

,>  2VI.  A)«iKiiiiii-iit  without  Hiilt  —  Of  imd  nirnlnst  common  rl^hL 

{  2%V.  AwilKiiineiit  by  suit  —  At  cuaunon  law. 


XviM  CONTEXTS. 

I  2»T.  AwUfnwnt  *>r  nuH—  At  Inw  umlcr  iit*tut<>Si 

J  Sri.  Asslennjiv  '  •   -"'■       ' ;.!i'.- 

I  2».  rr<Hif>'fr; 

)  2a0.  >jiti>piK-l> 

i  291.  WItlitw'M  rliitil  lutliiMcr  In  iiiaiikloii  houae. 

I  aC.  A<«lRT>in<>nt  by  tnft«it  atul  IkiuikIa. 

{  20.  A<nU(iiniciit  In  rrnt.i  itml  proflta. 

I  "SA.  AA.HlKiini<'ii(  In  i;ri>'>.H  Kiitiu 

I  Si.  Willow's  rlifhl  In  linpnivpinpntJ*. 

)  ax.  Wlilnw'tt  rliilit  to  <l.imac«-ii  l.i  law. 

I  Z/7.  Wldow'n  ii;;:it  to  iM-rounl  of  mtiinr  prnfltn  In  equity. 

I  aw.  KflT'M-t  of  axHlKninrnt 

I  ao.  KnTi-t't  of  fXo-Muvc  iLvilznmpnt. 

I  3DQ.  KflTirct  of  fvlcUon  from  iuwU[n<<<l  land*. 

fH.VlTKU    XV. 

WIKK's    KSTATI      IV     ill>iuvvii'«,    i-r  u-M  (\  \  I    rv. 
I  sou    UencnUly. 

CIIAITKH    XVI. 

KSTATKH  OK    1II°SIIA.M>  AM>  WIKK  I.N  ritOPKllTY  OK  IM>rir 
OK  THKM. 

)  3PZ.  Propt'rtr  nwnoil  hy  boUi  lifforo  iruurljiirn. 

I  .la  I"rop«Ttr  %-<irtlnir  In  tlii-ni  itfti-r  nuuriiun*. 

I  3W.  Tenancy  by  the  rntlrcty  nt  ronunon  Inw  —  Oration  of. 

{  3u*  Trnanry  by  Ibn  ciitln-ty  at  common  law   -  rrop«Tly  Riihjcrt  la 

I  »».  Tenojiry  by  the  pntlr»'ly  nt  common  law  —  Inrldpnta  of. 

I  aC.  KITiH-t  of  K'ntiilif*  n'fiTTlnir  to  joint  r>«tnt«"^ 

\  XK  KfTix-t  of  ni  irrli-<l  woiiicn">i  swparute  prtip«Tty  acts. 

)  309.  KfTiH-t  i.f  (llvorrr. 

I  Sid  Joint  and  common  •■^tnt"-^  of  biinhnnit  an<l  wife. 

I  ni.  PenioiuU  prup<  rty  helonirlnif  tt.  t.oth. 

<n\m:u  xvii. 

inMMINITY    ritnrKHTY. 

}  ^2.    Charartorlvlco.  nrlifln.  nnd  history  of  community  By«t<>in. 
)  UX    bt«iutcs  ri-luLliig  to  community  prup<Tiy. 


CONTKNTS. 

?  mt.  "VThnl  Is  nnrl  Is  not  rommnntty  propprty. 

I  :il!i.  Rlifhts  of  husband  ilnriiiK  rovfrturt-  ovlt. 

{  ^1<V.  HlBhtsof  wlfi- ilnriiiK  (•ov«»rtnrf  oviT. 

?  ^7,  niRlils  of  rrc'lUors  of  lin^biind  ami  wife  a»-i?r. 

{  TIH.  TMspositloii  of.  on  divorce  or  deutU. 

}  3ia  CoulUct  <if  luu-s  us  to. 


CTTAPTF-U    XVI IT. 

nOMKJ*TKAI>   niOPKIlTY. 

{  TCIt.  Pnrprwr  nnd  poH<-y  of  hoTn«"sirail  and  t-iemptlon  luws. 

J  .T2I.  <'oii«lriink>n  of  hoin«iil»'ud  Intrs. 

}  122.  The  pnrly  rntltli'il  ton  boaiH"»tt»iiiL 

)  XSl.  Thi-  lioTii-stcnd  <lifln<vL 

)  Ki.  In  TThul  «-stnt^s  tin-  hotnt-rtr^il  mny  t-TWt. 

I  XZk  How  th(*  homrMPad  Is  o)>tJiJn(<<1. 

I  xn.  Itow  Ihp  honn-stinrt  may  hf  Uwt. 

J  ."CT.  NiiTtin»  nf  t!jo  honii-wtonil  •!rtnt<',  nnd  Inr-ldonts. 

?  K*.  nietits  <if  hHshjiiid  m  n!id  oviT  thi' horrvi-sTraiL 

J  :Cn.  llUlits  of  wlfi- In  und  ovnr  tht' hom«-st<-iid. 

;  xa.  ]JuUII)tl<-s  of  the  bumesli-jid  Co  rJuiuis  uf  creditors. 


PvitT  IT.  —  The  Statts  or  ^I.vhrikd  AVomf.x. 
rllAl'TKIl    XIX. 

TMi:    STATTS   or    M.\KK1KI>    >VeiM  KX.  O  KN  F.ll  AI.l.Y. 

}  SSL  nonornl  n«If  iit  mmtnon  law,  no  li^Knl  t>xlst«»nr«'. 

{  .tC.  CiipniiJli-s  C)f  wifv  iititindnnivl  hy  hnshnnd. 

)  Xa.  riipiiiMll"-*  of  wlfv  illvom-il  >i  mrxjwi  r/  f*'>m. 

}  XH.  riipiiHlli-s  nf  wife  of  hir«hand  civilly  di^d. 

I  XV>.  riipm-ltli-s  <if  wife  of  birshand  not  tnii  jtirlx. 

{  XK.  riipiiHtl«-s  nf  \vif(>  nctlnif  In  rppresontatlve  position. 

;  XC.  riipi\cHl.«s  of  wlfi'  In  •■<inity. 

)  S-TS.  fapiicltlcs  of  wlfi-  under  statiitPS. 

j  33a  EfiTeft  of  uddlUoniJ  disability  of  Inlaacy,  et(x 


CO.VTKXTS, 


rilMTKK  XX. 

WII,I„S  OK   MAKIIIKU    WOMKV, 

(  *#1.  T<-»t:inii-iitury  law  iit  nppllcil  lo  iiinrrl<-<l  womnn. 

I  ."Ml.  Wi'N  i>r  m.irrli-<|  wnrm-ii  <tt  i-niiiiiiiiii  Liw.iffiiiTnllv. 

I  Srl  WIllHof  iii:irrl'M|  woiii'-ri  at  oimiiUMi  luw.  <'Xo-|>tk>ikS 

I  MU  WIIU of  iimrrhtt  n'uiiicii  tii  <><iulty. 

)  Mt.  Wlllfif  .•.|ii|t.i».|..  «,-p;ir:ii.'  pr<.|».rtv. 

(  M-X  W      ■     '  ..tututoii. 

I  .-Mfi.  \\  rfy. 

J  .117.  \\......    ,    :......:  A l.ttliiKiilAlifd. 

!*!■*.  KfTwt  of  liuMmiurs  rorwi-n{  I  >  u-tf«''«  will, 

{  its.  Mutual  -.rllN  of  liit!(l>uii<l  and  wife. 

J  .ViO.  t;  f    ■  < 'If  of  iiiarrf.Mt  M-omcru 

I  ^'<t.  U  A  III  liy  iiinrriiil  woniAii. 

I  SC  \\  '    f  r-  her  ni:irriiMn>. 

(  3VI.  V  -'ilir.ioii  uf  iiiuniace* 

I  XA.  I'.. I 


rii  \ri-i:ic  xxr. 

f«»VTUA<TS    <IK    MAKKIKM    WOMKN. 

.VkTUI.K    I.— TiIK    <;K>KI«VI,    I*IMN<iri,KS. 

I  XW.  nv  wopI  "roiitruct  "  ilflliii><l  anil  <'xplftlinHl. 

(  .V*.  Ijiw  of  contnu-t.s  ilh  hIT«i-I<-<I  hy  roviTtiir-'. 

{  357.  t'omrarl.H  of  niurrlftl  woinrn  ut  coninion  luw,  gi-norally. 

)  ViH.  Contnu-tK  of  utarrlft  women  at  ronimon  law,  rsceptlons. 

I  a59.  Contrnrts  of  nuirrli-il  wmiu-n  In  «Hiulty. 

I  SHX  Conlnu-t.HrhurKlnK  <-<|iiltalil)- iM-|mnit*>  propiTty. 

)  Ml.  Contnu'tnof  inarrUHl  womi-n  undi-r  ntutiiti-r 

(  SIC  Conlr«<'tii  ctuirjrtnit  Htutntury  iu»paniti>  pn>p<Tiy. 

}  ,*a.  0>ntriu-tsof  m.irrlol  wonn-n  a*  ac  ■iit.M. 

)  XH.  C'ontriu-tHof  niarrli'd  women  tlirouKli  affiMilA. 

I  3fti  Coutrarts  of  niarrliMl  women  niiuK-  before  ninrrlacf . 

I  ML  Contnu-t.s  of  marrli-il  women  ronflrmed  afttr  covi-rturv. 

)  3K7.  i'onlnietH  hetween  liuslinnd  and  wife, 

(  KM.  Invalid  i-ontntclii,  whether  void  or  voldiUile. 


rOXTKNTS.  XXl 

ArTU-I.K      it.  — TiIK      STATrTKS      rONSTRITEP  —  TlIKIR 
EFFKfT. 

I  ViO.  OtMM'rnl  Rtiitiiti>B  not  n-ferrlni;  to  mi\rr1f<1  wnnir-n. 

{  Xn.  Miirrli'il  wKminV  M)-pnrii(e  propt-rty  uct«.  iri-iuTully. 

I  ^I.  PropiTty  nrtK  —  ConirnriH  In  p<iMtty. 

i  XZ  Propi-rty  iwU— rimtnictM  by  Impllontlon. 

{  S73.  Proporty  iwts  — Conf  riu-t«  nn<1«'r  *'xprf««  piiwtTn. 

{  .T7-1.  StatuU'ii  Pxprftmly  authorlr.liiK  or  prohlhltliiij. 

?  ^.V  Stntilt<f»  fxprc-KMly  niitliorlrlnif  all  contract.^. 

}  Xd  St«lulo«  rcrjiilrlnK  forninlltlon. 

{  .T7.  I>oonl  ami  pxtm  tiTrltorliil  ptTort. 

J  'C*.  Primpi-cttvo  ami  rctrKspi-f-tlvi-  ••fT<H't. 

;  .T«  a.    TliP  wtaluK-n  In  tho  <hir<T<nt  Mtat«»n. 

AuTHi.K  ITT.  —  SPKmAi,  Kinds  ok  < '(>ntii.\<ts. 

{  37H.  CV)ntmrffl  in  prrmfutm  and  In  rrm. 

}  rwn.  Kxf-ontory  ami  cxiTutod  contriu-ts. 

{  Shi.  KzpriMwand  Implli-*!  (vintrm-ts. 

{  ^Z.  ('(iiitnict.M  nui<l<'  alune  uml  Jointly  with  liu*i))un<l. 

\  •'W.  PiirrhiuM'jt  ami  r«Ii>^. 

{  WL  CovonantH  and  honiK 

{  W.\  PromlHuory  noton. 

?  .1^  Rplc>a«<'«  and  rpcclpta. 

{  WT.  Ront,  ri'palrs,  and  fiinilly  <>xp<>nii>>ii. 

5  W«.  BnhmNsloii  to  arlill  radon. 

{  W9.  Ktnploymont  of  lUffnt.s. 

}  !W».  T.tnbnitlPH  an  ntorklioldor. 

\  ?m.  Contrarts  as  Mnr<'ty. 

}  rwC  ront>iict«  an  trader. 

\  3£0.  MLBOcllaiicoiw  rontnwtN,  ff. 


CTIAITKH   XXII. 

nKEPS   OK    MARRIED    WOMEN. 

}  SVI.  At  common  law. 

;  ."ew.  rndorstatntcs. 

{  XXi.  Ofdowpr. 

f  .HT.  Of  oqnilahio  Rpparnto  prnporty. 

{  SnR.  Of  statutory  separate  propert.v. 

{  890.  Joinder  of  husband. 


Lll  CONTKNT^i. 

I  •fW.  Ex<»ontlon  l>y  wifr. 

{  ♦•!.  C«Ttlfl<-iit«-' of  iiL-kiiijwlod<tment,  oto. 

i  ¥f2.  Conflrntallon  of  liivnild  ili-<>d  hy  wiff. 

)  4<«.  ConrtriniUJon  of  Itiviilld  d<-«-<l  lir  siatiiti'. 

(  ¥tl.  Ooiiflrntutl-iii  of  IiivhIM  iImhI  by  Kjully. 

(  ♦».).  riHI»«'<whtii'Til  iif  iii;irrii<l  woiii^-ii'.mI.smIii. 

I  if^i.  Murrteil  woinniiN  |>o\*-LrH  of  ttlt«»nu-y. 

{  Mr.  AKTT-i-montH  of  iiiurrli-'l  «rorm«n  to  gUi-  iIihnIn. 

{  MH.  ML-^vUiiU'-oiis  |Mtlnb«  us  t'»  dtr«>Ua  of  iniirrh-d  wonira. 

riiAiTKU  xxnr. 

hX-nHTri.N     AOAINST    M.VUIllKI"    WOMKV. 

«».  P>tn|>|M-U  ittv»«»««U. 

iUK  l>topp<U«Kiiliwt  in«/Tt.-<l  wnMiii>ti  — f4<'tii-nil  riilfj^i 

•III.  I->toi>p<'l!»  by  r<>r^ir<t  iurtl'i«t  in'irrlc<l  wniii'ii. 

All.  F><fop|M-Nhy  <trH«|ii«attiM  niulTli-«l  M-iiiiu-ii. 

41.^  r>lu|>p<  {"^  III  ;mi<j  tl>'Hn<-<l. 

Hi.  RMo|>p<:N  (n  jfiit  iiirulit<[t  iiturrV-<I  niiiiifti  -la<-tuTul  roIOk 

•IIV       K.'»K»pr>^N  tn  f-tl'  -  firtltrirf-. 

■IKU  Kf«»o|i|«l'i  I.,  y  III  -    F'lil-u-  r-'tin-sa'tiinHoiin. 

iXl.  r>lo|«|«ils  ii»,./»«.t  -sll>  iw-.-.  .i<4iil<-m-orM«»-. 

II*.  ^>^>f»|»••l«  In  futft  —  r^nn-  tort>. 

419.  K(T>i-l  <if  (Mirtl  'i|nitl<iii  lit  liimlmiiil. 

t  0>.  I'vMvpiH-ls  iifu-r  <IUwjlatl<ui  of  iiiiirrtiiK*'. 

<jrviTF:r{  xxrv. 

mrn-s  <»i-  .makiciko  wmmkn. 

f  r21,  n^n^nt}  r><»n«J»t^r«tl«i(i>v 

(  A'l.  AutMiup(*Ml  turtv 

i  Cn.  i>»<i>U|>t«itl  lort^. 

)  f?!.  T>»rt!iroi»n«'»'»<-<t  mtlt  ••'•iirni'T. 

)  i:^  UuhUUy  for.  liuw  viitun-<il. 

rFr.\rTr;ir   xxv. 
rnt>tf>  oi'  >iArir{ri;i>  \nmmf:x. 

J  -rSl.    >rntTf.'<t  w cnK-nV  lliihlllty  fur  rrfm*-. 
{  l?7.    Prixifof  uv;irrU.'<l  woiuiMi's  giiil:. 


(•OXTKXTS.  XXiil 

<irAi"n:u  xxvi. 

sins    or    MAIUdKD    WOMKN. 

Aicr.  I.— Mils  <<|-   Maiikii:i»  Wu.mkn,  i.v   (jK>Kit<vL,. 

{  ^2S.  rrt Uinln.iry  iioto. 

{  4^  Ri^hu  uiid  rcincdlifi  (U.stini^lshoil. 

(  -1.1).  KfTcrt  ot  ijinrrluf(<-  on  pcnilliiK  huI'.h. 

{  -lau  Suits  of  iiiurrl.'<I  women  at  conuiion  law. 

I  jni  Hiilts  <»f  initrrU-cI  wotiicii  In  iMiulty  uinl  tiy  Mntut(». 

{  -t.'n.  Sult'i  Iw-twct'ii  liiLS>>itii<l  nnil  wife. 

I  -I'M.  KlTi-ct  uf  (liK.s<ilutJ(>n  of  iiiiirrliir;)!  on  pi-inllnif  Kiiltii. 

{  iVt.  I^iw  of  fornni  itnvcrnM  rcuivillcH. 

{  +'IH.  Ijiw  of  tlnit.'  suit  )>roiiglit  Kuvems  rcnuHllcs. 

I  4.T7.  Cost*. 

AuTicLK  II.  —  Svrrs}  nv  Mahuiko  Womkx. 

I  ^-TS.  Mo<Io«  In  wlilrh  mnrrlixl  wonii-n  limy  .sm.'. 

t  rVk.  Suit!*  Jointly  with  hiiMlMtml. 

{410.  Suits  by  trusti'f  or  nixl  frii-nrl. 

i  -l-ll.  SiiitH  hy  niurrlf<I  woniun  uluno. 

{  -442.  Tlip  niimt-N  of  n<-tlon. 

f  4 IS.  Thi- <l.fi-nR»-». 

{  44^.  rii'Rof  i-<iviTtnr*  niTAlnst  mrirrlcd  vcomon. 

I  44.1.  rii'H  of  Itmltittioiis  iiiriiliist  nnirriiMl  women. 

{  4lfi.  S|)e<'ltil  proceediiiiCM  of  nii>rrl.-il  wonii-ii. 

{  447.  Tile  ownership  of  the  proceeds  of  suit, 

Akticlk  III.  —  SfiTs  Afj.viNsT  Maurikd  "Womkx. 

J  44S.  Mo<lfs  In  which  roftrrled  women  may  bo  sued. 

{  4r.i.  Suits  Jointly  with  liushiitiil. 

{  4.'iO.  Suits  with  tniKtee  or  ne.\t  friend. 

{  4.*>1.  Suits  iiKtdiist  murrled  women  ulone, 

J  A'lS.  The  servlee  of  pro<'ess. 

}  4.S.'!,  The  c-uuses  of  lU-tlon. 

{  4">4.  The  defenses. 

I  4"m.  The  plea  of  coverture  by  married  wompn. 

{  4."ifi.  The  plea  of  limitation!!  by  married  women. 

{  4.)T.  E:Te<-t  of  Judf^ment  aRalnst  niHrrled  women. 

J  45.S.  Kxecutlon,  etc.,  of  the  Ju:I;;ment. 

{  459.  .Special  proccedlnpi  against  married  women. 


XX  fv  fi>NTKNTS. 

\inni.K  IV.  — Manaukmkxt  ov  Srrrs. 

I  -lA).  Thf  powtTtiif  Ihi-  buHtmno  orcr  tin*  suit. 

(  -li'.l.  Th"  w  If.'-i  «<-jiarali'  !>iilt,  ili-fciiM-,  vie. 

{  -I  Tl  Marrl<-<l  wnnii-n'n  npixilntniftit  of  atturripyn  ■(  l»w. 

I  4fSl,  C'unip«-tuutUoii  uf  ouutWU  woiui-n'i  atlornvvv 

CHAITKK    XXVII. 

MAKUIKIi     WOMKN    TIIADKILS. 

AUTIt  UK    1.  —  .'MlllU'KS   OK   t'Ar.Vl-ITY     !•>   TliAl'K. 

I  1M,  ^'narrmi  of  rapai'tty'  to  trad*,  grnrmlr 

I  •I.Vi.  I  ■    "  miTH.  •' tnwli-."  ■•  i>u«iiii"t^     VI. 

i  4<U.  '  ' >4Uiit  bi  ct«  Uljr  deatl.  vu:. 

»♦,:.  ....  .  ::u 

I  4IM.  (.'apnrliy  In  i><]iiity. 

I  4SJ.  Cnpnr-lty  t>y  htunnti'Vn  rrin!«<»nt. 

J  •fro.  <  -  :  r.iporty  lu-t^ 

»  ri.  c 

I  47JL  (..J .,.,■...  -...>..i. -— ^1- ......' ■|iilrpn»-iiCn. 

AltTHLK  II.  —  IXCIOKXTS  OV  fATAilTY    TO  TUAHI'U 

i  <7X.    now  far  (teprndrnt  on  imarrffi  uf  capaciiy. 

MT*.    1  •       

J  4TV     : 

I  nv.   1. 

I  4TT.  ltu[ht.<i  of  bu.siHuid'n  cnnliUink 

i  <TS.  HlKhta  iiiKl  Il;thn!i|««  «f  liunlmmf. 

117%  MiiriiiMl  will.  '^Intnulc 

{  -I  .a  Miirrl.<l  »•«.  r^ 

I  i'\.  >Iurrlf<l  Willi ...  .  ii><mit«»n«,  »t«rkliiil<l' "  •  '■• 

cH.vm'KU  xxviir. 

JIAHUIF.P     WOMKN      IN      It  KI'Uf^liXTATI  VK     CArACITIES, 

)  ♦<!  Tlu'  (]Uf!«tion<i  Involved. 

{  -ivT.  .^imc  genrntl  rule*. 

I  iM.  MnrntHl  women  lu  xenti^ 

I  4>S[.  MnrrttHl  wum«-n  a.i  tnuteen. 

)  4S«i.  MarrliHl  womon  iu«  cxfx-uirlcea,  ato; 

{  i'C.  Muriieil  wuiuea  as  (fuanUaoa. 


TIlKKAWoriirsiiANDAXDWiri:. 


r.\itT  I.  iNxnonrrToRY. 

II.  TiiK  Hkuvtion  «ik  HrxBAXP  ant*  Wifi:. 

III.  TiiK  INtatks  ok  HrsiiAND  ani>  Wikk. 

IV.  Tin:  STATrs  oj-  Mahkiko  Womkn. 

Paut  I.  — Inthopuctouy. 
Chat.  I.    Thk  SnuK.fT  I)K.i-iXKn  and  l)ivi:iKn. 

II.      .S<>rHlH>.   iNTKHPIlKT.iTIUN,  ,VM)    CoXFLILTS 

OK  THK  Law. 


HUSBAXD    AXD    WIFE. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THK   SUBJECT   DKFINKD  AND   DIVIDED. 

J  1.  Husbaiul,  wlfo,  children,  the  marrlerl  state. 

2  2.  Tlio  rckitloM  of  husband  and  wife. 

i  3.  The:  estates  of  husband  and  wife. 

5  4.  The  status  of  married  woman. 

§  5.  The  relation  of  parent  and  child. 

g  1.  Husband,  wifo,  children,  the  marriod  stats.  —  After 
a  valid  marria^^c  betwcoii  t!uui,  man  and  woman  are 
husband  and  wifo,  and  their  oflspring  are  legitimate  or 
legal  children.  Those  continuing  conditions  which 
determine  the  legal  position  of  luisband  and  wife  with 
regard  to  eacli  other,  their  cliildren,  and  the  rest  of  the 
community,  constitute  tlie  status  of  marriage,  or  the 
marriage  or  married  state.  Tlie  married  state  may  be 
conveniently  divided  into,  (1)  the  relation  of  husband 
and  wife;  (2)  the  estates  of  husband  and  wife;  (3)  the 
status  of  married  women  ;  and  (4)  the  relation  of  parent 
and  child. 

ij  2.  Tha  rolation  of  husband  and  wifo.  —  Husband  and 
wife  are,  hy  the  law,  bound  together  in  a  peculiar  r.ia:.- 
ncr,  with  special  oliligations  and  rights  with  regard  to 
each  other,  which  constitute  the  relation  of  husband  and 
wife.  This  relation  may  be  conveniently  divided  into, 
(1)  the  unity  of  husband  and  wife  and  its  consequences  ; 


§2  3-5  SUBJECT   DEFINED  AND   DIVIDED.  4 

(2)  the  mutual  rights  and  obligations  of  husband  and 
wife  and  their  consequences ;  (3)  dealings  of  husband 
and  wife,  the  one  for  the  other;  and  (4)  dealings 
between  liusband  and  wife. 

?  3.  Estates  of  husband  and  wife.  —  Husband  and  wife 
stand  in  a  iieculiar  position  with  regard  to  their  own  and 
each  other's  property  —  the  conditions  of  tlioir  tenure 
constitute  the  estates  of  husband  and  wife.  Tliese  may 
be  conveniently  divided  into,  (1)  husbands  estate  in  his 
own  property ;  (2)  husband's  estate  in  his  wife's  realty, 

(3)  and  personalty ;  (4)  wife's  estates  in  her  own  jirop- 
crty ;  (5)  wife's  estate  in  her  husband's  I'calty,  ((>)  and 
personalty ;  (7)  estates  of  husband  and  wife  in  tlieir 
joint  and  common  property — joint  and  common  estates 
of  husband  and  wife. 

?  4.  The  status  of  married  women.  —  Besides  having 
special  riglits  and  obligations  witli  regard  to  tlieir  hus- 
bands, growing  out  of  tlie  relation  of  husband  and  wife, 
wives  stand  in  a  jieculiar  position  in  tlio  communitj% 
the  conditions  of  which,  tlieir  disabilities,  privileges, 
rights,  and  obligations,  constitute  the  status  of  married 
women.  This  may  be  conveniently  divided  into,  (1) 
coverture  and  its  effect  generally  ;  (2)  capacity  of  mar- 
ried women  to  hold  and  enjoy  property ;  (3)  wills  of 
married  women  ;  (4)  deeds  of  married  woman  ;  (5)  con- 
tracts of  married  women  ;  ((j)  torts  of  married  wonion  ; 
(7)  crimes  of  married  women ;  (S)  suits  of  married 
women;  (9)  married  women  as  traders;  (10)  married 
women  as  trustees,  etc. ;  (11)  estoppels  against  mar- 
ried women. 

^  5.  Relation  of  parent  and  child. — The  rights  and 
obligations  of  husljand  and  Avife  with  regard  to  their 
oft'spring  constitute  the  relation  of  parent  and  child. 


5  SUBJECT   DEFINED   AND   DIVIDED.  g  5 

In  a  cortain  sense  this  relation  therefore  belongs  to  the 
subject  of  husband  and  wife ;  but  it  is  customarily 
treated  separatelj',  and  will  not  be  discussed  in  this 
volume. 


SOURCES   OF   THE    LAW.  6 

CHAPTER  II. 
SOURCES,   IMERPRETATION,  AND  CONFLICTS. 

Art.  I.  Sources  of  the  Law,  ^g  6-10. 

II.  Interpretatiox  of  the  Law,  ??  11-18. 

III.  Past  and  Present  Law,  ?§  19-23. 

IV.  Home  and  Foreign  Law,  g§  24-37. 

Article  I.  —  Sources  of  the  Law. 

i    6.  The  common  law  and  English  statutes. 

5    7.  The  civil  law  and  codes. 

i    8.  The  equity  system. 

i    9.  Statutes. 

J  10.  The  resulting  questions. 

;j  6.  The  common  law  and  English  statutoc.  —  The  pom- 
iiion  law  of  England,  inelnding  many  Biili.sh  statutes 
in  force  before  ITTO,^  forms  the  basis  of  the  law  in  nearly 
all  the  United  States,  and  is  here  still  in  force  so  far  as 
it  is  consistent  with  the  principles  of  republican  gov- 
ernment and  with  the  statutes  of  the  various  States.^ 
This  is  so  in  Alabama,  Arkansas,  California,  Colorado, 
Connecticut,  Florida,  Georgia,  Illinois,  Indiana,  Ken- 
tucky, Maine,  Marjdand,  Massachusetts,  Michigan, 
Mississippi,  Missouri,  Nevada,  New  Hampshire,  New 
Jersey,  New  York,  North  Carolina,  Ohio,  Pennsyl- 
vania, Rhode  Island,  South  Carolina,  Tennessee,  Texas, 
Virginia,  Vermont,  and  Wisconsin.^  Some  of  these 
S:ates  were  originally  colonized  by  the  English,*  others 
by  statute  have  made  the  common  law  their  own.^ 
But  the  common  law  is  unknown  in  I^ouisiana,®  and  it 
is  doubtful  whether  it  is  in  force  in  Iowa.''  It  is,  of 
course,  in  force  in  England.*  Thus,  the  law  courts  in 
the  United  States  are  bound  by  the  common-law  fiction 


7  SOURCES  OF  THE   LAW.  §  7 

of  the  unity  of  husband  and  wife,^  and  an  estate  like 
curtesy  exists,  though  not  created  by  statute.^" 

1  See  Alex.  Brit.  Stats,  in  Md.  ;  Siblf.v  ?•.  Williams,  3  Gill  &  J.  r,2, 
r>1 ;  Hriiiley  v.  Whiting,  5  Pick.  348,  3o;j ;  Stevens  v.  Eiiders,  13  jS'.  J.  J.. 
271,  273,  274. 

2  Pawlet  V.  Clark,  9  Craiich,  2S2,  333;  Wheaton  v.  Peters,  8 
Peters,  ot)\,  6.".!);  Van  Xess  v.  PacarU:  2  Peters,  137,  144;  Pollard  v. 
Ha«<in,  3  How. 212  ;  Carter  v.  Balfour.  19  Alu.  814,  h2'j  ;  Grande  v.  Koy, 
H<"nip.  10.'>.  lo:» ;  Cal.  Code,  i  44(W ;  Colo.  (i.  L.  1><77,  p.  i:C,  ?  156  ;  Wil- 
ford  V.  Grant,  Kirby,  114,  117;  Fla.  Dig.  Issl,  p.  108,^7;  Xeal  v. 
Farmer,  9  (;a.  .V).5,  .jWJ ;  Pluinilcigh  v.  Cook,  13  111.  iKi,  671  ;  Dawson  it. 
Shaver,  1  Hluekf.  204,  20i! ;  Gorliam  v.  Luckett,  6  ilon.  B.  6:18,  645; 
Collev  V.  Jlerrill,  6  Me.  50,  5.5 ;  Ale.x.  Brit.  Stats,  in  Md.  ;  Going  i\ 
Emery,  16  Plek.  107,  115,  110;  20  Am.  Dec.  64.5;  Stout  )'.  Keyes,  2 
Donif.  (Mich.;  1S4,  1.H.S  ;  Wheelock  v.  Cozzens,  7  Miss.  27:i,  2,S3  ;  Keaume 
V.  Cha:iil)vrs.  22  Mo.  ::o,  51  ;  Nev.  C.  L.  1873,  ^  I  ;  State  v.  Moore,  26 
X.  n.  44S,  455  ;  Stevens  V.  Enders,  13  N.  J.  L.  271,  273,  274  ;  Waterford 
i:  People,  9  Barb.  161,  166  ;  State  r.  Huntlv,  3  Ired.  418  ;  Belts  v.  Wi.se, 
11  Ohio,  219,  221  ;  Kep.  of  .ludges,  5  Hinh.  5!i5.  601  ;  R.  I.  R.  S.  1882, 
p.  771,  j  3  ;  State  r.  Kutfliffe,  4  Strob.  372,  397  ;  Jacob  v.  State,  3 
llnmph.  493,  .514  ;  Tex.  H.  S.  1879,  i  31iS ;  State  i-.  Brings,  1  Aiken,  226, 
2J9  ;  Commonw.  v.  Lodge,  2  Gratt.  679,  580;  Wis.  R.  S.  1878,  p.  3.5,  i  13. 
See  Am.  Law  Reg.  Sept.  1882. 

3  Cases  in  note  2 ;  Bish.  First  Bk.  ?5  43-60 ;  1  Burge  Col.  &  For. 
L.  pp.  .507,  568. 

4  State  V.  Buchanan,  5  Har.  &  J.  317,  a5.5-357. 

5  Grande  v.  Foy,  Hemp.  105,  108,  109. 

6  Parsons  v.  Bedford,  3  Peters,  43:1,  449. 

7  O'Ferralln.  .Siniplot,  4  Iowa,  .381,391. 

8  See  Blackstone's  Commentaries. 

9  White  V.  Wager,  25  X.  Y.  :n9  ;  post,  ?  39. 
10    Reaume  v.  Chambers,  22  Mo.  36,  51. 

§  7.  The  civil  law  and  Codes.  —  The  civil  law  of  Rome 
and  the  Codes  form  the  basis  of  the  law  of  France  and 
Spain/  and  therefore  prevailed  in  tlie  Feneli  and  Span- 
ish colonies; 2  it  was  thus  once  in  force  in  Arkansas,^ 
Iowa,*  Michigan,^  Mis.souri,''  Texas,^  and  other  States  ;» 
but  these  have  by  statute  adopted  the  common  law ,9 
and  Louisiana  alone  has  a  .system  of  her  own  based 
upon  the  civil  law.'"  Still  the  civil-law  idea  of  the 
duality  of  husband  and  Avife'^  has  been  long  accepted 
in  courts  of  equity,'- and  has  been  generally  adopted  in 
modern  statutes  ;'3  and  in  the  new  States  like  Texas,  in 
regard  to  matters  occurring  before  the  adoption  of  the 
common  law,  has  latelv  been  enforced.'*    So  the  civil- 


§  8  SOURCES  OF  THK   LAW,  8 

law  system  of  community  proiierty  exists  in  California, 
Louisiana,  Nevada,  and  Texas.'' 

1  Schouler  Husb.  &  W.  ?  5. 

2  Bii  Poncpnn,  Ju.-isd.  74,  70. 

3  Oraiide  v.  Foy,  Hc-mp.  105,  \0K 

4  O'Forrall  v.  Simplot,  4  Iowa,  381,  384. 

5  Du  Ponceau  Jurisd.  74. 

6  Du  Ponceau  Jurisd.  79. 

7  Bish.  First  Book,  ?  57. 

8  Soe  Bish.  First  Book,  U  47-5'? ;  Du  Ponceau  Jurisd.  74-82. 

9  Ante,  |  6. 

10  Parsons  v.  Bedford,  3  Peters,  433, 449. 

11  1  liurge  Col.  &  For.  L.  202  ;  p>,.it,  i  39. 

12  Post,  U  8.  -"55.  •»2,  197-216. 

13  iVwf,  ??  9,. Xi,  43,  217-243. 

14  Lee  i-.  Smitli,  18  Tex.  141, 14.S. 

15  Discussed,  post,  ?J  312-^519. 

?  8.  The  equity  system.  —  Courts  of  equity,  by  virtue 
of  their  jurisdiction  over  trusts,  have  always  taken  cog- 
nizance of  trusts  for  the  separate  use  of  married  women, 
and  have  recognized  to  this  extent  the  separate  existence 
of  the  wife.  This  jurisdiction  has  been  gradually  ox- 
tended  to  the  general  relief  of  married  women.'-  Tlius, 
when  at  law  a  married  woman  could  not  hold  property 
at  all,  she  could  be  protected  in  the  enjoyment  of  suc!\ 
as  was  .settled  in  trust  for  her  sole  and  separate  use  in 
equity;*  so  a  contract  between  husband  and  wife  is 
absolutely  void  at  common  law,  but  may  be  valid  in 
equity.*  In  Pennsylvania  equity  and  law  are  adminis- 
tered by  the  same  court,  and  the  distinction  between 
law  and  equity  does  not,  therefore,  to  such  an  extent 
prevail.^ 

1  See  Harvev,  1  P.  Wms.  124;  TuUett  t>.  Armstrong,  1  Beav.  21, 
22  ;  Stur^s  r.  Ch'ampuys,  5  Mont,  &  C.  103. 

2  Maoq.  Hush.  *  W.  2'<4.  2S5  ;  1  Bish.  M.  W.  J?  16-22  ;  Schoul.  Husb. 
<fe  W.  J  IW ;  Pybus  v.  .Smith,  4  Brown  Ch.  4So. 

3  See  Chew  i-.  Beall,  13  >rd.  M%  360  ;  post,  \\  197-216. 


9  SOURCES  OF  THE   LAW.  |  9 

4    See  Barron,  24  Vt.  375,  398,  390 ;  post,  ?  42. 

."5  See  Pollarrl  v.  Shaaffer,  1  Dall.  210,  214  ;  Bisblng  v.  Graham,  14 
Pa.  St.  14.  18  ;  Miller,  44  Pa.  St.  170 ;  Tvson,  10  Pa.  St.  220  ;  Rees  v. 
Waters,  9  Watts,  90,  94  ;  Rawle  "  Equity  in  Pa."  87. 

g  9.  Statutes.  —  Each  State  has  full  control  of  the 
domestic  condition  of  its  domiciled  inhabitants,  and 
inaj^,  so  far  as  there  is  no  prohibition  in  the  Constitu- 
tion, through  its  lejKislature,  change  and  establish  the 
riglits,  liabilities,  disabilities,  and  status  of  husbands 
and  wives.i  In  tlie  United  States,  Congress  has  no 
power  to  pass  laws  on  this  subject  Avhich  will  be  en- 
forced in  the  several  States. ^  So  unsatisfactory  has  the 
cominon-law  system  of  liusband  and  wife  been  found 
that  all  tlie  States  have  availed  themselves  of  their 
aforesaid  power  to  change  tlie  law,  and  now  statutes 
are  the  most  important  of  all  the  sources  of  the  law  to 
be  consulted.  A  reference  to  the  compiled  l&ws  of 
each  State  witli  access  to  which  this  book  is  written  is 
appended.^  It  would  be  interesting  to  trace  the  his- 
tory of  tlie  law  in  the  several  States,  but  the  scope  of 
this  work  does  not  allow  this  to  be  done.* 

1  stone  V.  Gazzam,  46  Ala.  269,  274  ;  this  is  nowhere  denied. 

2  Strader  v.  Graham,  10  How.  82,  93  ;  Green  v.  State,  58  Ala.  190, 
195;  -State  v.  Gibson,  36  Ind.  :«9,  39.5-400;  Sewall,  122  Mass.  1.56,  Ifil ; 
Hopkins,  3  Mass.  1.5S,  1.59  ;  Hunt,  72  N.  Y.  217, 228  ;  Doc.  Lonas  v.  State, 
3  Ili'isk.  2S7. :« I ;  Frashor  )•.  State,  3  Tex.  App.  26.3,  275  ;  Cook,  56  Wis. 
396 ;  14  N.  W.  Rep.  33,  30,  443. 

3  Ala.  Code,  1876  ;  Ark.  Dig.  1874 ;  Cal.  Civ.  Code.  1881  ;  Colo.  G.  L. 
1S77;  Conn.  G.  .S.  1875;  Del.  R.  C.  1874  ;  Fla.  Dig.  1881 ;  Ga.  R.  C.  1878  ; 
111.  R.  S.  18S0  ;  Ind.  R.  S.  1881 ;  Iowa,  R.  C.  1880  ;  Kan.  C.  L.  1881  ;  Kv. 
G.  S.  1S81  ;  La.  Civ.  Code,  1875 ;  Me.  R.  S.  1871  ;  Md.  R.  C.  1878  :  Mass. 
P.  S.  1882;  Mich.  R.  S.  1882  ;  Minn.  St.  1878  ;  Miss.  R.  S.  lasO  ;  Mo. 
R.  S.  1879;  Neb.  C.  S.  1881  ;  Nev.  C.  L.  1873  ;  X.  H.  G.  L.  1878  ;  N.  J. 
Rev.  1877;  N.  Y.  R.  S.  1882;  N.  C.  Bat.  Rev.  187:;  Ohio  R.  S.  ls80  ; 
Oreg.  G.  L.  1872 ;  Pa.  Pi-rd.  Dig.  1872-1876 ;  R.  I.  P.  S.  1882 ;  S.  C.  G.  S. 
18S2  ;  Tenn.  R.  8.  1873 ;  Tex.  R.  S.  1879 ;  Va.  Code,  1873  ;  Vt.  R.  L.  1880; 
"VV.  Va.  R.  S.  1879  ;  Wis.  R.  S.  1878. 

4  See,  for  Interesting  discussions  of  the  law.  Day  v.  Gould,  31  Cal. 
631,  637-646;  Wells  r.  Cay  wood,  3  Colo.  487,  490-193  ;  Jackson  v.  Hub- 
bard, :«  Conn.  10,  15,  16  ;  Martin  r.  Robson,65  111.  131  ;  Cooper  v.  How, 
4'i  Ind.  393,  400  ;  Tong  v.  Martin,  15  Mi'-h.  60,  66,  67  ;  Albin  v.  Lord,  39 
K.  H.  196,  201  ;  Whit''  v.  Woger,  25  N.  Y.  :328,  3-30-332  ;  Radford  v.  Car- 
vile,  13  W.  Va.  573,  581-674. 


^}  10-11  IXTEEPRKTATION   OI'   THE   LAW.  10 

^  10.  The  resulting  questions.  —  1.  Since  the  law  is  in 
part  unwritten  and  in  pai't  statutory,  the  question 
arises,  how  do  the  two  combine?  "What  do  the  statutes 
mean  ?  How  are  the  laws  of  liusband  and  wife  to  be  in- 
terpreted ? '  2.  Since  new  statutes  are  constantly  chang- 
ing the  law,  the  question  arises,  when  do  these  changes 
take  effect  ?  Does  this  case  depend  on  past  or  present 
law?-'  3.  Since  every  State  has  its  own  law,  the  ques- 
tion arises,  what  State's  law  applies  ?  Does  this  case 
depend  on  home,  or  on  some  foreign,  law?'* 

1  rost,  i>c  ii-i"- 

2  Post,  U  19-23. 

3  Post,  U  24-37. 

AKTICLE.    II.  —  IXTERPRETATIOX   OP  THE    LaW. 

§  11.  Iiiterprc'tatioi)  in  general. 

5  12.  liules  of  interpretation. 

i  i:<.  (Jeneral  st.itiites  do  not  afT.'Ct  liiisband  and  wife. 

i  H.  Marri.'tl  women  acts  do  not  afToct  marriage  relation. 

i  1.5.  Prop-.Ttyaets  do  not  alToct  personal  status. 

5  16.  Strict  and  liberal  interpretation. 

5  17.  Prospective  interpretation. 

§  IS.  Local  interpretation. 

2  11.  Interpretation  in  gonoral.  —  The  main  difficulty 
in  the  admiiiistra.iou  of  the  law  of  huslmnd  and  wife 
lies  in  asceriaiuing  tlie  meaning  and  cfTect  of  statutes.' 
Tliese  are  often  carelessh'  and  ignorantly  (h-awn,  and 
not  according  to  rule,  so  that  it  is  verj^  diflicult  lij^  rule 
to  determine  what  they  mean.'''  Still  certain  rules  may 
be  formulated  which  will  serve  for  guidance  in  the 
great  mass  of  cases,^  and  the  more  special  effect  of  par- 
ticular statutes  will  be  considered  under  tlie  various 
titles.! 

1  And  yet  the  words  "interpretation"  and  "construction"  are 
not  in  the"  index  of  Schonler's  "  Husband  and  Wife."  or  Kelly'.s 
"Contracts  of  Married  Women,"  the  latest  books  on  marriage 
rights. 


11  INTEUPRETATIOX  OF  Till:   LAW.  J  13 

2  Seo  Sedg.  Const.  Stats,  pp.  2G3-271 ;  2  BIsh.  M.  W.  ?§  n-Z7  ;  Ste-v- 
art  M.  &  1).  ?J  51,  53,  57,  8!),  !tl,  97,  216,  228,  :151. 

3  J»(Wt,  ??  12-18. 

4  See  index  "Statutes,"  "  Construction,"  and  the  various  titles. 

§  13.  Rules  of  interpretation. — No  statute  is  complete 
in  itself  but  it  combines  with  the  pre-existing  law;' 
and  tlius  ari.ses  the  following  rule:  (1)  All  provisions 
of  law  statutory  and  unwritten,  at  wliatever  several 
dates  established,  are  to  be  construed  togetlier  as  con- 
tracting, expanding,  enlarging,  and  attenua':ing  one 
another  into  one  harmonious  system  of  jurisprudence.* 
A  statute  inaj'^  be  general  and  refer  to  all  persons  with- 
out mentioning  liusband  and  wiTe,  or  it  may  particu- 
larly refer  to  husband  and  wife  ;  and  in  the  latter  case 
may  refer  to  one  or  more  of  the  divisions  of  husband 
and  wife  —  tlie  relation  of  husband  and  wife,  tlie  estates 
of  husband  and  Avife,  the  status  of  married  women  ;^ 
and  thus  arise  the  following  rules :  (2)  no  general  stat- 
ute affects  the  law  of  husband  and  wife;*  (3)  married 
M'omen  acts  do  not  attect  the  relation  of  husband  and 
Avife  ;*  (4)  property  acts  do  not  affect  the  personal  status 
of  husband  and  wife.*  The  groat  majority  of  husband 
and  wife  statutes  are  remedial  and  enabling,  and  to 
construe  them  strictly  would  bo  to  defeat  their  pur- 
pose; on  the  other  hand  they  are  in  derogation  of  the 
common  law,  and  should  therefore  be  strictly  con- 
strued ;  hence,  arises  the  following  rule :  (o)  statutes 
l-elating  to  husband  and  wife  are  construed  -strictl;;  so 
far  as  they  give  new  rights  or  impose  new  obligations, 
but  liberall}/  so  far  as  they  secure  the  onjoj'ment  of 
rights  or  the  enforcement  of  obligations.'  .Statutes  are 
passed  which  contain  no  provision  as  to  when  they 
shall  take  eti'ect ;  hence  arises  the  rule  :  (6)  all  statutes 
are  prospectively  construed.^  Statutes  are  passed 
Which  make  no  distinction  between  rights,  etc.,  in  and 


§  13  INTERPRETATION   OF   THE    LAW.  12 

out  of  the  State ;  hence  arises  the  rule  :  (7)  all  statutes 
are  locally  construed  ;3  other  rules  have  been  laid 
do\\ni,  such  as  :  (8)  there  can  be  no  repeal  by  implica- 
tion ;'*  (9)  married  women  separate  property  acts  are 
declaratory  of  equity,  and  are  construed  in  accordance 
with  the  principles  thereof;"  (10)  statutes  fi;iving  new 
remedies,  etc.,  do  not  take  away  old  ones;''^  (II)  stat- 
utes whicli  take  away  capacities,  etc.,  are  strictly  con- 
strued.'^ 

1  See  Canal  v.  Railroad,  4  Gill  &  J.  1, 152. 

2  See  Cole  v.  Van  Riper,  44  111.  5S,T>? ;  1  Elsh.  M.  V/.  ?  3.1 ;  2  Bish. 
M.  W.  a  11, 12 ;  and  the  rules  infrcu 

3  Ante,  ii  l-i- 

4  Hemingway  v.  Scales,  42  Miss.  1, 17  ;  2  Am.  Rop.  5S6  ;  post,  J  13, 

5  Walker  v.  Reamy,  30  Pa.  St.  410,  414  ;  post,  i  14. 

6  Albin  v.  Lord,  .3!)  X.  H.  196,  202  ;  post,  i  15. 

7  Abshire  v.  State,  .53  Ind.  64,  67  ;  post,  ?  16. 

8  Post,  ?J  17, 19-23. 

9  Po««,  ??  18,  24-37. 

10  See  Mnvor  v.  Magruder,  34  Md.  381,  383,  387  ;  Berley  v.  Ram- 
pacher,  5  Duer,  183,  186. 

11  Ric-hnrdson  v.  Stodder,  100  Mass.  528,  5.30  ;  Snvder  v.  People.  26 
Mich.  10!,  IO:i  ;  12  Am.  Rep.  302:  Albiii  i'.  Lord,  31  X.  H.  106,  20:!.  204  ; 
Batchelder  v.  Siirenit,  47  X.  H.  262,  2r,.5.  266  :  Peake  >•.  I.a  Raw,  21 
X.  J.  Kq.  2S2  ;  Jobiison  v.  C'limniins,  16  X.  J.  Eq.  97,  105,  106  ;  Ynle  r. 
Dederer,  IS  X.  Y.  265,272,  279  ;  Balliii  v.  Dillayo,  .■!7  X.  Y.  35, 37  ;  Walker 
V.  Reamy,  36  Pa.  St.  410,  414. 

12  Herzberg  v.  Sachse,  GO  Md.  426,  432. 

13  .See  Ingoldsbv  v.  Juan,  12  Cal.  575 ;  Maclay  v.  Love,  25  Cal.  .3S1  ; 
Bodley  r.  Ferguson,  30  Cal.  518. 

J  13.  Gsneral  statutes  do  not  affect  husband  and  wife. — 
No  general  statute  atfects  tlie  law  of  luisband  and  wife ; 
to  change  such  law  a  .statute  must  expressly  refer  to  it.' 
Thus,  statutes  enal)ling  persons  generally  to  contract, 
will;  or  testify  do  not  enable  married  women  to  make 
contracts 2  or  wills,^  or  husband  and  wife  to  testify  for 
or  against  each  other.*  So  statutes  relating  to  forfeit- 
ures for  treason,'  to  bastardy  proceedings,*  and  to 
insolvency,'  have  been  held  not  to  apply  to  married 
women.    So  s':atutes  referring  to  joint  tenants  do  not 


13  INTERPRETATION   OF   THE    LAW.  §  11 

affect  the  holding  of  husband  and  wife  by  entireties.^ 
But  a  statute  holding  the  purchaser  at  a  mortgage  sale 
liable  for  the  difference  in  case  of  non-payment  and 
resale,  was  held  applicable  to  married  women ,9  and  so 
liave  bank  acts  as  to  the  liability  of  stoclvliolders.io 

1  See  Dano  r.  M.  O.  27  Ark.  .5&4,  567  ;  Phillips  v.  State,  15  Ga.  518, 
521  ;  Kiuffer  v.  Ehler,  IS  Pa.  St.  :588,  .'iHl  ;  cases  infra. 

2  This  is  so  plain  that  it  has  never  been  questioned:  See  Robert- 
son V.  Burner,  2-1  Miss.  242,  244  ;  post,  i  363. 

3  Cutter  v.  Butler,  2.t  N.  II.  .%<:! ;  Baker  v.  Chastang,  IS  Ala.  417, 
422  ;  Fitch  r.  Braincrtl,  2  Day,  1(>3,  liK) ;  Osgood  v.  Breed,  12  Mass.  525, 
5:!0  ;  Morse  v.  Thompson,  4  Cush.  .562,  56;{;  post,  i  34.5. 

4  StaplPton  I'.  Crofts,  is  Add.  &  E.  N.  S.  .-Jfi-,  36!) ;  Alcock,  12  Eng. 
L.  &  Eq  •■{•54,  355;  Lucas  v.  Brooks,  IS  Wall.  4:)6,  4-52  ;  Jones.  6  Biss.  6S, 
fiit ;  Sumner  v.  Cooke,  51  Ala.  521  ;  Lincoln  v.  Maduus,  102  III.  417.  421 ; 
Mitchinson  v.  Cross,  5S  111.  'Mr,.  :v,'.) ;  Buss  r.  Steanihoat,  14  Iowa,  363, 
.374:  McKeen  v.  Frost,  46  Me.  23;),  24S,  2.50;  Dwell v,  46  Me.  377,  3S0; 
Turpin  i'.  State,  55  Md.  462,  477;  Peaslee  v.  MoLoon,  16  Gray,  488,  489  ; 
Kfllv  V.  Drew,  12  Allen,  107, 10!» ;  Anon.  58  Miss.  1.5, 18  ;  Bvrd  v.  State, 
57  Miss.  243;  M  Am.  Rep.  440;  Dunlap  v.  Hearn,  37  Miss.  471,  474; 
Young  V.  CJilman,  46  N.  H.  4S4,  4S6  ;  Corson,  44  N.  H.  .5^7,  .58S  ;  Long- 
endvke,  44  Barb.  366,  .370 ;  Schultz  v.  State,  32  Ohio  St.  276,  2S0  ;  Gibson 
V.  Com.  87  Pa.  St.  2-53,  2.56;  State  v.  Workman,  15  S.  C.  540,  546  ;  Staf- 
ford, 41  Tex.  Ill,  US  ;  Gee  j'.  Scott,  48  Tex.  510,  514  ;  26  Am.  Rep.  331 ; 
r'ram,  33  Vt.  15,  20 ;  Manf-hestcr,  24  Vt.  64!!,  a50  ;  but  see  Jlerriam  v. 
Hartfonl,  20  Conn.  .354,  .363  ;  Berlin,  52  Mo.  151,  153  ;  jwst,  i  56. 

5  Martin  v.  Com.  1  Mass.  347,  391. 

6  Wilbur  t-.  Crane,  13  Pick.  2S4,  2!)0. 

7  Relief  v.  Schmidt,  55  Md.  97,  9S. 

8  Flading  v.  Rose,  58  Md.  13,  20 ;  post,  ?  306. 

9  Fowlerv.Jacob.Md.Ct.  App.  Oct.  1SS3;  Md.  Law Rec.  Oct.  4, 1S84. 
10    The  Reciprocity  Bank,  22  N.  H.  n,  15  ;  pott,  ?  369. 

^  14.  Married  womon  acts  do  not  affect  the  marriage 
relation.  —  Married  womon  acts,  or  acts  expressly  re- 
ferring only  to  the  disabilities  or  tlie  property  rights  of 
married  women,  do  not  aftect  the  relation  of  hu.sband 
and  wife  ;  they  change  tlie  status  and  rights  of  the  lius- 
band  only  so  far  as  is  necessary  to  secure  to  the  wife 
the  enjoyment  of  her  riglits.^  Thus,  in  spite  of  a  mar- 
ried women  act  the  husband  and  wife  are  bound,  as 
under  the  common  law,  to  cohabit  ;2  the  hu.sband  is 
liead  of  the  familj*,'  and  is  bound  to  support  his  wife,* 
and  is  entitled  to  her  person*  and  labor.^  If  the  act 
H.  &  V.'.  — 2. 


§•14  INTERTPETATION   OF   THE   LAW.  14 

secures  her  earnings  to  her,  she  is  still  her  husband'.s 
helpmeet,'  and  cannot  charge  for  servnces  to  him.^  A 
statute  enabling  her  to  liold  and  to  convey  properly 
does  not  necessarily^  enable  her  to  be  lior  husband's 
grantee  9  or  grantor.'"  A  statute  enabling  her  to  con- 
tract or  sue  generally  does  not  authorize  contracts 
AviLli'i  or  suits  against'-  her  husband.  A  statute  secur- 
i'.i;^  to  her  her  separate  property  does  not  wholly 
exclude  her  husband  from  the  enjoyment  of  it;"  she 
cannot  forbid  him  her  house,'*  or  restrict  him  to  the 
use  of  a  certain  chair,'^  or  remove  her  property  from 
his  custody;'^  he  is  not  guilty  of  trespass  for  entering 
her  premises,'"  or  of  trover,'^  or  larceny,"  for  taking 
hor  goods;  nor  is  his  liability  for  her  contracts-"  or 
torts  ^'  thereby  removed, 

1  In  addition  to  cases  cited  infra,  see  cases  post,  ?  15. 

2  See  Cole  v.  Van  Riper,  44  111.  58,  6T  ;  Schindel,  12  Md.  lOS,  121, 
312,  313  ;  Sn  vdor  v.  People,  2G  Mich.  IO(i,  110  ;  12  Am.  Kop.  302  ;  Walker 
I'.  Reamy,  36  Pa.  St.  410,  414  ;  pout,  i  5!). 

3  Glover  v.  Alcott,  11  Mich.  471,  485  ;  post,  ?  00. 

4  Snyder  v.  People,  26  Mich.  106, 10) ;  12  Am.  Rep.  302  ;  jiost,  I  W. 

5  Raybokl,  20  Pa  .  St.  308,  311  ;  post,  U  62,  63,  65. 

6  Seitz  J'.  Mitchell,  94  V.  S.  5S0,  5S4  ;  McLemore  v.  Pinkston,  31 
Ala.  267,  270  ;  Mitchell  i'.  Seitz,  1  McAr.  480  ;  Hear  v.  Havs,  36  III.  2'SO, 
2^1;  Farrell  >\  Patterson,  43  111.  52,  51);  Connor  v.  Berrv.  46  111.  370, 
372  ;  Schwartz  v.  Saunders,  46  111.  18,  24  ;  McMurtrv  r.  Webster,  48  III. 
i:i,  124;  Marsluill  r.  jMike,  .il  Ind.  62;  I'uncan  v.  Roscll.',  l".  Iowa, 
501,  .503;  Merrill  r.  Smith,  :57  Me.  :!!)4,  3!IR  ;  (Jlover  )■.  .Vh-ott,  II  Mich. 
471,482;  Hfiidorsiiii  r.  \Varmack,27  Miss.  H30,  8:i5 ;  Apple  r.  (Janong, 
47  Miss.  18'J,  l:i!t ;  Ilovt  >\  White,  46  N.  H.  4-i,  47  ;  Quidort  r.  Pergeaux, 
18  N.  .1.  Eq.  472,  4MI ;  Kidcr  r.  Hulse,  33  Barb.  2W,270  ;  Syme  I'.  Riddle, 
8S  ^'.  C.  463,  465  ;  Raybokl,  20  Pa.  St.  308,  311  ;  jnst,  'i  65. 

7  Mewhirter  v.  Hatten,  42  Iowa,  288,  292  ;  20  Am.  Rep.  618  ;  post, 
?65. 

8  Hazelh.iker  r.  Goodfellow,  m  111.  238, 241 ;  Mewhirter  v.  Hatten, 
AZ  Iowa,  2ss,  -Jill,  2:13  ;  20  Ain.  Hi'i>.  61'^  ;  Grant  v.  Green.  41  Iowa, iS, 91, 
'.i2  ;  Glover  r.  Aleott.  II  .M-ch.  471,  4-s3  ;  Brooks  v.  Schwerin,  M  K.  Y. 
343,  :>1S  ;  Reynolds  r.  Robinson,  64  N.  Y.  589,  5113  ;  post,  'i  (>5. 

9  See  Trader?'.  Lowe,  45  Md.  1,  14  ;  tn/ra,  n.  10;  pos^  H3. 

•   10    White  V.  Wager,  25  N.  Y'.  328,  3.32  ;  infra,  n.  10  ;  post,  §  43. 

11  This  is  disputed  :  that  she  can  :  See  Bank  v.  Banks,  lOl  U.  S.  240, 
244,  245  ;  Kinkead,  3  Hiss.  405,  410;  Wells  v.  Cay  wood,  3  Colo.  4S7,  4J4  ; 
Hamilton,  8!i  111.  ;H9,  351 ;  Robertson,  25  Iowa,  3.50,  :j5o  ;  Allen  v. 
Hooper,  50  Me.  371,  374,  375;  Jcniie  v.  Marble,  :i7  Mich.  319,  ;t2l,  323; 
Ransom,  30  Mich.  328, 330 ;  Rankin  v.  West,  25  Mich.  1  ;)o.  200  ;  Burdeno 


15  IJfTEEPEETATION   O"  THE   LAW.'  §  15 

V.  Ampcrse,  14  Mich.  01,  97  ;  Albiii  v.  Lord,  H9  N.  H.  196,  203,  204 ; 
ZimmermaJin  v.  Erhurd,  58  Uow.  Pr.  11,  13  ;  Woodwortli  v.  Sweet,  51 
N.  Y.  H,  11.  That  she  cannot,  see  Iloker  v.  Boggs,  63  111.  161,  163  ; 
Knowles  r.  Hull,  99  Ma-ss.  562,  .5W.  SB'i ;  Lord  r.  Parker,  3  Allen,  127, 
12.);  Aultnian  v.  Obermeyer,  6  Neb.  260,  2(>4  ;  Savage  v.  O'Neil,  42 
Barb.  374,  379  ;  White  v.  Wager,  25  N.  Y.  328,  330,  XM.    See  post,  i  43. 

12  Smith  t\  (iorman.  41  Me.  40ri.  40S  ;  Libbv  v.  Berry,  74  Me.  286, 
238  ;  Bariou   32  Md.  214,  224  ;  Freethy ,  -ii  Baib.  641,  frl5 ;  post,  ?  54. 

13  C"nle  r.  Van  Riper, 44  Til.  58.  63  ;  Snhinrtel,  12  Md.  108, 121  ;  Snvder 
r.  Pcopli',  2(1  Mir-h.  106,  109;  12  Am.  Rep.  302  ;  Walker  v.  Reamy,  36 
Pa.  St.  410,  414  ;  post,  U  59,  60. 

14  Col?  T.  Van  Riper,  44  111.  5S,  63 ;  Snyder  v.  People,  26  Mich.  lOG. 
110  ;  12  Am.  Rep.  ;i02  ;  jjost,  'i  9. 

15  Walker  v.  Reamy,  .36  Pa.  St.  410,  414. 

16  Schindel,  12  Md.  lOS,  121. 

17  Snvder  r.  People,  26  Mich.  106,  lOS,  111 ;  12  Am.  Eep.  302 ; 
Walker  v.  Reamy,  36  Pa.  St.  410,  414  ;  pnst,  'i  48. 

18  Walker  v.  Reamy,  38  Pa.  St.  410,  414  ;  post,  i  48. 

19  Thoma.s,  51  111.  162, 16.", ;  >p;st,  ?  4'.X 

20  Connor  i<.  Berry,  46  111.  "."0,  ."ITS  ;  P.erley  r.  Rampacher,  5  Duer, 
133  ;  contra,  IlawartJi  v.  Warm.ser,  5S  111.  48,"49.    See  post,  I  67. 

21  Clioen  )'.  Porter,  66  Ind.  194,  196,  199  ;  MrElfresh  v.  Kirkendall, 
36  Iowa,  224,  2J7;  Eders  v.  Rcok,  1*  Iowa,  »fi.  s7 ;  K  rguson  v.  Brooks, 
07  Me.  2.51,  2.')7  ;  Baum  v.  Mullen,  47  >'.  Y.  577,  -578;  Fowler  r.  Chi- 
chester, 26  Ohio  St.  S,  14;  JIoQUeeii  1\  Fnli?liam,  27  Tex.  463,  467; 
contra,  Martin  v^  Robson,  65  IJJ.  129,  i;J0,  139;  16  Am.  Rep.  578.  See 
post,  i  66. 

^  15.  Statutes  relating  to  estates  of  husband  and  wifa 
do  not  affect  thoir  personal  status.  —  s;atutes  relating  to 
estates  or  propert3^  rights  of  liusband  and  wife  do  not 
affect  their  jier.sonal  status  or  relation.i  Thus,  a  statute 
authorizing  conveyances  between  husband  and  wif^^ 
does  not  remove  their  incaijacity  to  contract  together 
personally;^  and  a  statute  securing  property  to  a  mar- 
ried Avonian  as  if  unmarried  does  not  remove  her  per- 
sonal disabilities;^  for  instance,  to  contract.*  Many  oT 
tlio  illu.strations  under  section  14  also  support  thi.j 
rule. 


?  16  IXTERPRETATIOX   OF   THE   LAW.  IG 

2  See  Jenne  r.  Marble,  37  Mich.  319,  321 ;  post,  ?  43. 

3  Albin  r.  Lord,  39  N.  H.  19G,  202  ;  Ballin  v.  Dillaye,  37  X.  Y.  3.5,  37 ; 
f  Jlyde  I'.  KeisttT,  32  Pa.  St.  8.5,  8.S  ;  jMst,  ?  -13. 

4  See  Xorris  v.  Lantz,  LS  Md.  260,  2C1 ;  Sturmfoltz  v.  Frickey,  43 
Md.  4U9.  471  ;  (rroene  f.  Frondhof,  1  Disn.  .'MM,  50.5  ;  Kavanaugh  v. 
Brown,  1  Tc.x.  4>I,  4S4  ;  jMjst,  CoxTitACTs  of  Makkied  Womkx,  J  370. 

I  16.  Strict  and  liberal  interpretation  of  marriage  stat- 
uto3.  —  S.atutes  i-elating  to  hu.sband  and  wife  are  con- 
strued .strictly  so  far  as  they  give  new  rights  or  impose 
new  obligations,  but  liberally  so  far  as  they  secure  the 
enjoyment  of  rights  or  the  enforcement  of  obligations. 
The  first  clause  of  this  rule  seems  to  be  the  eftect  of 
the  true  ajjplication  to  marriage  statutes  of  the  familiar 
rule  that  statutes  in  derogation  of  tlie  common  law  are 
.strictly  construed.^  Thus,  a  statute  giving  riglits  in  cer- 
tain kind.s  of  property  does  not  affect  other  property,'^ 
the  Maryland  statute  .securing  to  a  married  women 
property  acquired  by  gifi,  grant,  devise,  or  bequest  does 
not  affect  in-operty  acquired  by  descent,^  or  a  legacy 
which  at  coinmon  law  would  have  lapsed.*  A  statute 
enabling  a  married  woman  to  make  specified  contracls 
does  not  enable  her  to  make  any  not  specified;*  nor 
does  one  enabling  her  to  will,  to  sell,*  or  one  giving 
Iior  power  to  hold  and  dispose  of  during  her  life,  to 
will;'  nor  does  a  right  to  hold  carry  with  it  a  right 
to  buy  and  mortgage  for  the  purchase  money.*  The 
second  clause  of  the  above  rule  seems  to  be  the  effi?ct 
of  the  true  aiiplication  to  marriage  statutes  of  the  famil- 
iar rule  that  enabling  and  remedial  statutes  are  liberally 
construed.*  Tiius,  wlien  a  statute  enables  a  married 
woman  to  trade,  she  may  trade  on  credit  and  make 
executory  contracts;'"  when  one  enables  her  to  man- 
age her  property  as  if  single,  she  may  employ  an  agent 
to  manage  it ; "  when  one  gives  her  certain  property, 
the  increase  of  such  property  is  likewise  hers ;  ''^  when 
one  empowers  her  to  administer  alone  she   has  full 


17  IXTERPRETATIOX   OF   THE    LAW.  j^?  17-18 

power  to  perforin  without  reference  to  her  husband  all 
acts  relating  to  the  administration.'^ 

1  S^edK.  Const.  Stats,  p.  ic^'  and  notes  ;  Cole  v.  Van  Riper,  44  HI.  .58, 
C,:i;  Brookings  v.  Wliite,  4t  Me.  47!),  4S1  ;  Lord  t'.  Parker.  3  Allen,  127, 
121);  Kdwards  ?•.  Stevens,  3  .Allen,  :U5;  Tong  v.  Marvin,  1.5  Mioh.  fiO, 
7.? ;  Brown  r.  Fifield,  4  Mich.  .522,  :i26  ;  Sullivan  r.  La  Crosse,  10  Minn. 
:is6,  KX) ;  Blackman  v.  Wheaton,  V.i  Minn.  326,  331  ;  Eckert  v.  Renter, 
83  X.  J.  L.  266,  26S;  Hurd  v.  Cass,  !t  Barb.  366,  368:  Berlev  v.  Ram- 
paclicr,  .5  Duer,  1S3,  186;  Freethv,  42  Barb.  641,  642;  Dewes  v.  Good- 
.■iioui;li,  56  Barb.  .54,  58  ;  Perkins,  62  Barb.  .531.  But  see  Cal.  Civ.  Code, 
^5004. 

2  See  2  Bish.  M.  W.  ?  17. 

3  So  the  statute  was  amended  and  "d;>seent"  added:  Md.  Acts 
1874,  ch.  .57 ;  see  Abshire  v.  State,  .53  Ind.  64,  67. 

4  Williams  r.  Bailee  Circuit  Ct.  Carroll  Co.  Md.  May,  1875,  Md. 
Law  Record,  Jan.  14,  1882. 

5  Stnrmfelta  v.  Frickey,  43  Md.  561,  .571  ;  Robertson  v.  Bruner,  24 
:Miss.  242,  244. 

6  Brown  v.  Fifleld,  4  Mich.  .322,  326. 

7  Harker,  3  Har.  (Del.)  51,  59. 

8  Running  r.  Pike,  46  Me.  461,  463 ;  poxt,  ?}  223,  327,  .■?73. 

0  Sedg.  Const.  Stats,  pp.  270,  271 ;  De  Vries  v.  Conklin,22  Mich.  2.55, 
251;  Lee  r.  Bennett,  31  Miss.  113,  125;  Dunbar  r.  Mever,  43  Miss.  67', 
<a.5:  Corn  r.  Bahcock,  .57  Barb.  2.*2 ;  42  X.  Y.  613;  Goss  r.  Cahill,  42 
B  irb.  310,  :!15  ;  Power  r.  Lester,  17  How.  I'r.  4i:?,  416  ;  Uwir,  P.i.  St.  106, 
10) ;  Ber«"y,  70  Pa,  St.  408,  418. 

10  Youni?  r.  Gori,  13  Abb.  Pr.  13, 14. 

U  Southard  r.  Plummer,  36  Me.  64,  70,  71  ;  post,  U  82,  84. 

12  Williams  v.  McGrade,  13  ■\Iinn.  46,  ,52,  .53. 

13  Huls  r.  Buntin,  47  III.  .3!i6,  .300. 

^  17.  Prospective  construction  of  statutss.  —  In  the  ab- 
sence of  express  provision  statutes  are  a])plied  only  to 
acts  taking  place,  and  riglits  arising  after  their  jiassage.' 

1  Considered  1u\iy,po.H,  ?|  lD-23. 

?  18.  Local  construction  of  statutes.  —  In  the  absence  of 
express  provision  statutes  are  applied  only  to  acts  tak- 
ing place  witliin,  or  persons  domiciled  within,  or  prop- 
erty situate  within,  or  suits  instituted  within,  the  State 
where  tliey  are  passed. ^ 

1     Considered  fully,  ^jos?,  ??  24-36, 


19  PAST   AND    PRESENT    LAW.  18 


Article  III.  —  Past  and  Present  Law. 

i  19.  Prospective  and  retrospective  statutes. 

J  20.  All  statutes  prima /ac(C  prospective. 

i  21-  Retrospective  statutes,  validity  of. 

J  22.  Retrospective  statutes,  vested  rights. 

{  23.  Retrospective  statutes,  curative  acts. 

g  19.  Prospective  and  retrospective  statutes.  —  Past  auci 
present  law  may  be  administered  side  by  side.  Thus, 
in  1877  a  court  decides  that  the  law  gives  a  husband  no 
curtesy  in  his  wife's  lands  because  she  holds  them  as 
statutory  separate  property  under  the  Act  of  18G0  ; '  and 
in  1880  the  same  court  dacides  that  a  husband  has  cur- 
tesy because  the  marriage  took  pla39  and  the  property 
v.-as  acquired  before  the  Act  of  1860.^  In  one  case  tlie 
Act  of  1860  governs,  in  the  other  the  law  which  has  been 
repealed  is  applied.  This  is  because  there  are  certain 
rights  existing  at  tlie  timo  a  statute  is  parsed  wliich  it 
cannot  change,^  others  that  it  will  be  construed  not  to 
change  unless  the  intention  to  do  so  clearly  appears.* 
A  statute  wliich  changes  or  attempts  to  change  existing 
rights  is  called  retroactive  or  refrosjiective;  one  wliich 
applies  onh^  to  rights  arising,  or  which  might  have 
arisen  subsequently  to  its  passage,  is  called  prospective.^ 
It  may  therefore  be  an  important  consideration,  in 
determining  the  law  of  a  marriage  riglit,  Avhen  tlio 
marriage  took  place,  and  when,  in  the  case  of  property 
rights,  the  property  was  acquired.^ 

1  Mason  »•.  Johnson,  47  Md.  317,  357,  3.t8. 

2  Porter  v.  Bowers,  .to  5[d.  213, 21.'5,  216. 

3  Potis  V.  Parker,  22  Tex.  701 ;  post,  ?  22. 

4  Elliott  V.  ]!f  ichols,  4  Bush,  502,  503 ;  post,  J  20. 

h  8ep  .Stewart  M.  <fc  B.  ?5  228,  451  ;  Coolev  Constlt.  Lim.  371,  462, 
71.  1  :  1  P.ish.  M.  it  I),  'ii  (;7fM.76  ;  2  lUsli.  M.  W.  ',\  36-51  ;  Satterloo  v. 
Miitthewson,  2  Peters,  4!3,  414;  Noel  r.  Ewiner,  9  Ind.  37,  55-53  • 
i:iliott, :«  Md.  357,  362  ;  Buller  v.  Palmer,  1  Hiil,  321,  ;J29,  XX). 

6  See  .Sutton  v.  As'cew,  6'>  N.  C.  172. 176,  177 :  8  .Vm.  R"p.  500  ;  Wes- 
son V.  Johnson,  6J  N.  C.  18J,  192  ;  Philips  i\  Disney,  16  0:xio,  62J,  651. 


19  PAST   AND   PRESENT   LAW.  §  20 

g  20.  All  statutes  prima  facie  prospective. — Some  stat- 
utes expressly  state  when  they  shall  take  effect  and 
how  far  they  shall  apply  to  existing  rights ;!  in  such 
cases  there  is  no  room  for  iuLerpretation.^  But  statutes 
which  do  not  contain  express  provisions  of  this  kind, 
are  presumed  to  apply  only  to  rights  arising  after  their 
enactment,"  and  not  to  destroy  existing  rights  :  if  these 
are  vested,  because  such  construction  might  nullify-  the 
statute  ;*  if  valuable  only,  because  it  is  deemed  unjust 
to  take  away,  to  a  person's  damage,  rights  acquired  in 
reliance  on  previous  law.^  Thus,  a  statute  giving 
wives  a  new  right  in  "all  "their  husbands'  jiroperty 
will  apply  only  to  subsequent  wives  or  subsequent 
liroperty ;  "^  and  a  statute  giving  a  wife  separate  prop- 
crtj^  will  not  deprive  a  husband  of  his  freehold  estate 
jure  uxorisJ  But  this  rule  —  Nova  const itutio  fiitur is 
formam  imponere  debet,  non prmteritis^  —  has  no  foun- 
dation when  a  statute  is  both  constitutional  and  reme- 
dial, and  such  statutes  should  be  given  the  'O'idest  pos- 
sible, application;'  and  it  seems  it  does  not  apply  to 
statutes  changing  the  procedure.'"  Nor  Avill  it  be  al- 
lowed to  modify  the  rule  that  the  rights  of  an  heir, 
distributee,  deAnsee,  or  legatee  depend  on  the  law  exist- 
ing at  the  time  of  the  intestate's  or  testator's  death.'i 

1  MeLellan  v.  Nelson,  27  Me.  r29,  130.  All  "  that  have  been  or 
sliall  be":  Plumb  v.  Sawyer,  "21  Conn.  :i51,  :<.>5.  The  English  "Mai- 
ried  Women's  Property  Act  1882,"  carefully  does  this. 

2  Baugher  v.  Nelson,  9  GUI,  233,  303  ;  52  Am.  Dec.  094. 

3  Stewt.  M.  &  D.  II  128,  4.51 ;  Cooley  Con.st.  Lim.  62, 370  :  2  Bish.  M. 
W.  ??  36,  51  ;  Plumb  i\  Sawyer,  21  Coiin.iil,  3.55  ;  Noel  ?•.  Ewing,!i  Ind. 
37,  00, -57  ;  and  see  TuUer,  79  111.  09  ;  Knoulton  v.  Redenbaugh.  40  Iowa, 
114  ;  Cumberland  r.  Washington,  10  Bush,  .564  ;  Kugers  v.  Greenbush, 
&S  Me.  395  ;  Hopkins  v.  Frey.  2  (Jill,  3.59,  3ft5  ;  Herbert  r.  Gray.  3S  Md. 
529,  .531  ;  Medford  v.  Learned,  16  Mass.  215,217;  Harrison  i'.' Metz,  17 
:Mich.  .^77;  Garrett  v.  Beaumont,  24  Miss.  377;  State  v.  Auditor,  41 
Mo.  25  ;  Colony  v.  Dublin,  32  N.  H.  4:52  ;  Baldwin  v.  Newark,  3S  N.  J. 
L.  1.5s;  Drake  v.  Gilmore,  52  N.  Y.  3S9;  Merwin  v.  Ballard,  66  N.  C. 
308;  Allbyer  v.  State,  10  Ohio  St.  .5'i8  ;  Haley  ;■.  Phila.  6-8  Pa.  St.  45:  8 
Am.  Rep.  153  ;  Graham,  13  Rich.  277  ;  Clawson  v.  Hutchinson,  U  S.  C. 
323;  Danville  r.  Pace,  25  Gratt.  1;  18  Am.  Rep.  6G3  ,  Sturgis  v.  Hull 
48  Vt.  302 ;  State  v.  Atwood.  11  Wis.  42-2  ;  Marsh  v.  Higgins,  9  Com.  B. 
551,  567 ;  Moon  v.  Durden,  2  Ex.  22,  41-13. 


g  21  PAST   AXD   PRESEXT   LAW.  20 

4    Court  must  prive  statute  constitutional  meaning:   Burson,  22 

Pa.  St.  164, 167  ;  Bradbury  v.  Wagenhorst,  54  Pa.  iSt.  ISO.    ^eepost,  ?  21. 

o    Court  will  not  construe  statute  against  public  policy :  Cuyahoga 

r.  McCaughy.  2  Otiio  St.  152, 155  ;  Phillips  v.  Eyre,  Law  K.  6  Q.  B.  1, 

2?.     See  post,  i  24. 

6  See  Plumb  v.  Si.wver,  21  Conn.  351,  355  ;  Noel  v.  Ewing,  9  Ind. 
37,55-57;  Sutton  v.  Askew,  66  N.  C.  172,  176,  177;  8  Am.  Kep.  500; 
3Ioon  r.  Durden,  2  Ex.  22,  38  ;  wite,  ?  19. 

7  Meyers  v.  Gale,  45  Mo.  416,  41.'^ ;  post,  i  146-150. 

8  Moon  V.  Durden,  2  E.x.  22,  S3,  42. 

9  See  Ironsides,  31  Law  J.  Adm.  123, 131, 132. 

10  See  Shouk  v.  Brown,  fil  Pa.  St.  320,  327  ;  Wright  v.  Hale,  6  Jur. 
N .  S.  1212  ;  30  Law  J.  Ex.  40,  42,  43  ;  }>  «^  ?  321. 

11  See  Cooler  Const.  Lim.  3.50,  445,446;  2  Bi.sh.  M.  W.  |  43;  Ware 
V.  Owens,  42  Ala.  212,  215  ;  Marshall  i'.  King,  24  Miss.  85,  'JO  ;  post,  i  21. 

I  21.  Eetrospective  statutes,  validity  of.  —  Legislatures 
have  power  to  pass  retrospective  laws  unless  prohibited 
by  paramount  law.^  It  has  been  said  that  when  such 
laws  take  away  valuable  rights  they  eontlict  with  the 
fundamental  principles  of  common  right  and  common 
reason  and  are  therefore  void;-  but  the  better  opinion 
.seems  to  be  that  they  are  valid  unless  prohibited  by  the 
written  law  —  by  the  Constitution  ;3  so  that,  in  England, 
the  rule  against  retrospective  laws  is  said  to  be  merely 
a  rule  of  construction.*  The  United  States  Constitution 
renders  void  all  e.r  post  facto  laws,'  but  this  provision 
applies  only  to  criminal  laws,^  so  that  not  even  a  legis- 
lative divorce,'  or  a  law  prohibiting  marriage  after 
divorce,*  can  be  an  ex  post  facto  law.  It  also  prohibits 
all  laws  impairing  the  obligation  of  contracts,^  and  this 
of  course  applies  to  contracts  by  or  between  husband 
and  Avife;'"  but  it  does  not  apply  to  marriage,"  or 
marriage  rights,^^  for  marriage  is  not  a  contract,  but  a 
status  of  which  marriage  rights,  liabilities,  capacities, 
and  disabilities  are  the  conditions.'^  Some  State  Con- 
stitutions expres.sly  forbid  "retrospective  laws,""  but 
it  seems  that  this  prohibition  does  not  attach  to  all 
retrospective  legislation, i^  but  only  to  such  as  is  deemed 
unjust,'^  or,  perhaps,  as  divests  vested  rights."    In  all 


21  AST   AXD   PRESENT   LAW.  §  21 

the  State  Constitutions,^*  and  now  in  tlie  United  States 
Constitution,^'  it  is  provided  tliat  no  one  sliall  be  de- 
prived of  his  "property"  without  due  process  of  law. 
But  under  this  prohibition  every  riglit  is  not  property ; 
it  applies  not  to  inclioate  and  contingent  rights, -°  but  to 
vested  rights  only,-*  and  gives  rise  to  the  familiar  rule, 
"no  statute  can  divest  a  vested  right,"--  But  all  these 
constitutional  provisions  may  be  waived  by  a  party 
intended  to  be  protected  ,^3  even  against  creditors,^*  un- 
less tlicy  have  actual  liens. ^j  Thus,  even  if  curtesy  is 
a  vested  right  which  cannot  be  taken  away,^  a  husband 
may  assent  to  his  wife's  liolding  her  property  separately 
under  a  retrospective  statute,  and  his  creditors  cannot 
attach  liis  curtesy  for  his  debts.'''  Such  waiver  will 
be  iiresumed  when  tlie  act  results  in  the  party's  bene- 
fit,^ and  a  court  will  declare  the  statute  void  only  on 
the  application  of  the  party  whose  rights  have  been 
divested.® 

1  Watson  V.  Mercer,  8  Peters,  8S,  HO  ;  infra,  n.  3. 

2  KlotchcT  1'.  Peck,  6  Cranch,  87,  13.5,  136  :  Wilkinson  v.  Leland,  2 
Peters,  (1-7,  C.V! ;  Martin,  13  Ark.  IDS,  a)C  ;  Goshen  v.  Stonington,  4 
Conn.  20 1,  22-') ;  10  Am.  Dec.  121  ;  BaiiKlicr  r.  Nc'Ison,  9  Gill,  299,  306  ;  52 
-Vni.  Dec.  ('..14;  Thistle  v.  Frostburs,  10  M'l.  12i»,  144;  Medford  v. 
Lcanicil,  16  Mass.  21.5,  217  ;  Williams  v.  Robinson,  6  Cush.  3:»,  3.^5; 
Merrill  v.  .Sherburne,  1  N.  H.  W.i,  213 ;  8  Am.  iJec.  52  ;  Tavlor  v.  Por- 
ter. 4  Hill.  140.  149  ;  40  Am.  Dec.  274  ;  Bloodfjood  v.  Mohawk,  18  Wend. 
9.  .56  ;  31  A  m.  Dec.  313 ;  Varick  v.  Smith,  5  Paige,  137,  1.59  ;  Cochran  v. 
Van  Surlav,  20  Wend.  .365,  373;  .32  Am.  Dec.  570;  Dav  v.  .Savadge, 
Hob.  Ho,  87  ;  Bonham,  8  Coke,  114,  118  ;  London  v.  Wood,  12  Mod.  669, 
6*7. 

3  Watson  r.  Mercer,  8  Peters,  88, 110  ;  Satterlee  v.  Matthewson,  2 
Peters,  413,  414;  Glenn.  47  Ala.  204,  207,  2'iS ;  Elliott,  .3S  Md.  .3.57,  :362 ; 
J'.augher  v.  Nelson,  9  Gill,  299,  .305,  .307;  .52  Am.  Dec.  6:M  ;  Butler  v. 
}'  dmer,  1  Hill,  324,  329,  330  ;  Westervelt  v.  Gregg,  12  N.  Y.  202,  208,  209, 
211. 

4  Ironsides,  3]  Law  J.  Adm.  129,  131  ;  Moon  v.  Durden,?  Ex.  22,  .37, 
42  ;  Marsh  i'.  Higgins,  9  Coin.  B.  551,  567,  56J. 

5  V.  S.  Const,  art.  1,  U  9, 10. 

6  Watson  v.  Mercer.  8  Peters.  88, 110  ;  Soeietv  v.  AVh^eler,  2  Gall. 
104, 138 ;  Baugher  i:  Nelson,  9  GUI,  2i)9,  305  ;  52  Am.  Dec.  694. 

7  Stewart  M.  &  D,  ^  191,  198,  citing  Starr  v.  Pease,  8  Conn.  .SU,  545, 
546,  and  other  cases. 

8  Elliott,  38  Md.  357,  362  ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  |?  200,  415,  4-32. 

9  V.  S.  Const,  art.  1,  ?  10. 


I  22  PAST  AND  PKEiE>*T   LA\V.  22 

10  Moreau  v.  Detchemeiuly,  IS  Ho.  522,  627. 

11  Stewart  M.  <t  D.  i  liM,  citing  Pennoyer  v.  Neflf,  95  U.  S.  71-1,  731, 
T.tj,  and  oilier  cast;s. 

12  Moore  v.  Maj'or,  8  N.  Y.  110, 113 ;  50  Am.  Dec.  473  ;  post,  U  1G2, 217. 

13  See  fully  Stewaif.  M.  &  D.  U  1, 16,  17. 

14  Socif-ty  V.  Wheeler,  2  Gall.  10.5,  1.39  ;  Edwards  v.  Pope,  4  III.  4r..-), 
433;  Whitman  v.  Hapgood,  10  Mass.  4:?7,  4:i3  ;  Woiirt  v.  Winnirk,  3 
N.  H.  473,  477;  14  Am.  Dec.  384  ;  Cuyahoga  v.  McCaughy,  2  Ohio  St. 
152,  155. 

15  Cooley  Const.  Lira.  371, 402,  n.  1 ;  1  Bish.  M.  A  D.  ??  070-676. 

16  See  CuvahoEca  v.  McCaughy,  2  Ohio  St.  152. 155  ;  Phillips  v.  Eyre, 
Law  R.  6  Q.  B.  1,  24  ;  ante,  i  20. 

17  Cooley  Const.  Lim.  .371,  462,  n.  1  ;  cases  cited  supra,  n.  14. 

IS  Cool,-y  Const.  Lim.  351,  435 ;  see  e.  g..  Md.  Const.  1867,  Decl.  of 
Kights,  art.  23. 

19  Fourteenth  Amend.  1 1. 

20  Smith  v.  Packard,  12  Wis.  371,  372. 

21  Westervelt  ?>.  Gregg,  12  N.  Y.  232,  20S,  209,  211;  as  to  what  rights 
are  vested  :    See  2><>'st,  '(  22. 

22  Hinton,  PhUl.  cX.  C.)  410,  415;  cases  cited posi,  ?  22. 

23  Parsons  v.  Armor,  3  Peters,  413,  425;  2  Bish.  M.  W.  ?  34;  cas?9 
infra,  notes  27-29. 

24  Meyers  v.  Gale,  45  Mo.  416,  418 ;  Lefever  v.  Witmer,  10  Pa.  St. 
505,  506. 

25  Phumb  V.  Sawver,  21  Conn.  351,  35.5  ;  Clark,  20  Ohio  St.  128,  13R  ; 
Lefever  i-.  Witmer,  10  Pa.  St.  505,  506. 

26  Po.s^  l  162. 

27  Clark,  20  Ohio  St.  128, 1.36. 

28  Miller,  16  Mass.  .59, 61 ;  State  v.  Newark,  27  N.  J.  L.  185, 197.  See  2 
Bish.  M.  W.  ?  35  ;  post,  I  22. 

29  Sticknoth,  7  Nev.  223, 236, 

I  22.  Retrospective  statutes,  vested  rights.  —  A  more 
prior  state  of  things  is  not  a  Tested  right.^  All  mar- 
riage rights  are  not  vested ;  thus,  a  man's  right  to  his 
wife  is  not,  for  she  may  be  taken  from  him  by  legisla- 
tive divorce ;  ^  and  so  conjugal  rights,  causes  for  divorce, 
personal  incapacites  of  husband  and  wife,  may  be 
varied  by  the  legislature  at  will.^  The  term  "  vested 
right "  can  in  fact  be  predicated  only  of  property  not  of 
status.^  A  vested  right  is  an  immediate  right  of  present 
enjoyment  or  a  present  fixed  right  of  future  enjoy- 
ment -/^  other  rights  may  be  equally  valuable,  but  they 
are  not  vested.^    Property  includes  its  increase,''  but  not 


23  PA-.T   .VND   PRESENT   LAW.  §22 

ramedies.^  Sometimes  lien  creditors  of,  or  purchasers 
from,  husband  or  wife,  have  vested  rights  which  cannot 
Ije  disturbed.^  Riglits  arising  out  of  marriage  are  or 
are  not  vested  as  follows  :  — 

1.  Personal  rights  arising  from  the  status  of  husband 
and  wife,'"  or  the  status  of  parent  and  child,''  are  not 
vested  rights. 

2.  A  hufibancPs  rights  over  his  own  property  are 
vested.  Thus,  a  statute  cannot  take  away  l;is  right  to 
convej^  l^roperty  he  possessed  before  its  passage,'^  or 
give  his  wife  dower  in  such  lands, '^  or  give  his  Avifc  a 
part  of  such  land^  in  lieu  of  dower.'*  A  husband's  free- 
Iiold^'«?'e  uxoris  in  his  wife's  realty  is  vested.'^  So,  it  is 
said,  is  liis  curtesy  initiate,^^  but  the  contrary  is  the 
prevailing  doctrine.'^  So  is  his  common  law  right  to 
his  wife's  personalty  in  possession,'*  and  to  money  due 
for  her  services,'^  but  not  to  her  future  labor.^o  His 
right  to  her  choses  in  action  is  not  vested,  but  contin- 
gent on  his  reducing  them  to  possession,^  though  there 
are  authorities  to  the  contrary.^^  ^  husband's  rights 
as  heir  or  next  of  kln-^  are  contingent  on  his  wife's 
daath,  and  may  be  modified  any  time  before  her 
death.^' 

3.  A  wife^s  rights  on  her  own  property  are  vested : 
thus,  a  statute  may  enable  a  wii'e  to  convej'^  the  reversion 
in  her  realty.^  A  wife's  inchoate  dower  is  not  a  vested 
right  ;^  it  may  be  taken  away  any  time  before  tlie  hus- 
band's death  ;  2^  it  may  be  taken  for  public  uses  without 
compensation  to  her;"'®  still,  it  has  been  held  a  vested 
right,"^*  and  a  right  arising  from  contract.^"  A  wife's 
dower,  therefore,  depends  on  the  law  in  force  at  the 
time  of  her  husband's  death  ;^'  though  of  course,  a 
Gtatute  giving  dower  cannot  affect  property  of  the  hus- 
band already  assigned^"-'  or  seized  in  execution.^^  A 
\\afe's  rights  as  heir  or  next  of  kin,**  contingent  on  her 


§   22  PAST  AXD  PRESEXT  LAW.  24 

husband's  death,  may  be  modified  any  time  before  his 
death. ^^ 

4.  HushancVs  and  wife' a  rights  in  their  estates  by 
entireties  are  vested.^* 

1  Ironsides,  31  L.  J.  Adm.  129,  l.U 

2  Unless  such  divorce  Is  specially  prohibited:  See  Stewart  M. 
&  D.  \\  li«i,  li)7. 

3  Because  the  rule  "  No  statute  can  divest  a  vested  right,"  is 
based  on  the  clause  '■  No  one  shall  be  deprived  of  property,  etc. ;'' 
Ante,  i  21. 

4  See  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ?{  194,  228.  461  ;  ante,  ?  21. 

.5  2  Kent  Com.  202  ;  2  Bish.  M.  W.  ?  38  ;  Stewart  <fe  Car.  Husb.  <t 
W.  pp.  127,  lis,  as  to  his  right  as  her  trustee,  see  Carpeuter  v.  Brown- 
ing, 98  111.  282. 

6  See  2  Bish.  M.  W.  ??  45,  46. 

7  George  v.  Ransom,  15  Cal.  322,  324. 

8  See  Rerlprocitv  Bank,  2!)  Barb.  309,  3,S2;  Shonk  v.  Brown.  01 
Pi.  St.  320.  327  ;  Tate  v.  Stooltzfoos,  16  Serg.  &  R.  35,  3S ;  10  Am.  Dec. 
546. 

9  Consult  Plumb  i-.  Sawyer,  21  Conn.  351,355;  Bridgforl  i'.  Rid- 
dpl,  55  l;l.  2(11.  2(Hi;  Furrell  v.  Patterson,  43  111.  .51,  .58  ;  McCaffertv,  8 
Blackf.  MS,  J.t)  ;  Coinly  v.  Strader,  1  Ind.  l:M,  135  ;  Davis  r.  OTerrall, 
4'Treciii',  lf)S,  :t5s ;  oivcii  v.  M:irr,27  Me.  212,222-224  ;  Curtis  r.  Hobart. 
41  Me.  2::u,  232;  Davis  i'.  Nfwton,  •'.  Met.  537;  Coombs  »•.  Read,  li! 
Gray,  271,  273;  Mevers  r.  Gale,  45  Mo.  416,  418;  Cunningham  r. 
Gray,  20  Mo.  170,  172,  173  ;  Clark,  2(1  Ghio  s;t.  128,  i:«i ;  l,ef»ver  >:  Wit- 
mer,  10  Pa.  St.  .50.5,  506  ;  GlUespii;  v.  Warford,  2  Cold.  Gil,  (:J4  ;  Green  t. 
Otte,  1  Sim.  250,  2.52. 

10  Supra,  notes  1-4. 

11  IT.  S.  V.  Balnbrldge,  1  Mason,  71, 80  ;  People  r.  Turner,  55  111.  280, 
284,  285;  8  Am.  Rap.  (545  ;  State  v.  Clotter,  33  Ind.  409,  412  ;  Bennet,  i3 
N.  J.  Eq.  114,  IIH 

12  Noel  !'.  Ewing,  n  Ind.  37,  55,  57,  62,  63. 

13  Sutton  t'.  .\skow,  66  N.  C.  172,  177  ;  8  Am.  Rep.  500. 

14  Noel  I'.  Ewing,  9  Ind.  37,  57,  61. 

15  Rose  V.  Sanderson,  .38  III.  247,  250  ;  Beale  r.  Knowles,  45  Me.  479, 
480  ;  Mevers  r.  Gale,  45  Mo.  416, 418  ;  Prall  v.  Smith,  31  X.  .1.  L.  244, 246  ; 
Lefever V.  Witmer,  10  Pa.  St.  505  ;  Burson,  22  Pa.  St.  164, 167 ;  Mellinger 
IK  Bausman,  45  Pa.  St.  522,  .529. 

16  2  Bish.  M.  W.  i  43 ;  Mellinger  r.  Bausman,  45  Pa.  St.  522,  523  ; 
Wlnue.  1  Lans.  508,  513  (reversed  2  Lans.  21). 

17  Hathon  v.  Lvon,  2  Mieh.  93,  95  ;  Winne,  2  Lans.  21,26 ;  Sharpless 
V.  West,  1  Grant,  257,  260;  Porter,  27  Gratt.599,  606;  Stewart  M.  &  D. 
il  -H-^  ^51. 

18  Farrell  v.  Patterson  43  III.  .52,  58  ;  Buchanan  v.  Lee,  69  Ind.  117  : 
Sharp  r.  .Maxwell.  :J0  Miss.  .5S!),  .591;  Bovco  v.  Cavce,  17  Mo.  47,  4'»: 
Ryder  r.  Hulse,  33  Barb.  264,  270  ;  Quigley  v.  Graham,  18  Ohio  St.  4i. 
45  :  Mellinger  r.  Bausman,  45  Pa.  St.  522,  529 ;  Hawkins  t'.  Lee,  "2  Tex. 
&i4,  547,  &18. 

19  Sno  Hinman  v.  Parkis,  33  Conn.  188,  i')7  ;  Henderson  r.  V.'ar- 
mack,  27  Miss.  830,  835;  Bruckett  v.  Drew,  20  N.  II.  J4'.,41". ;  Kller  r. 


25  PAST   AND   PRESENT   LAW.  g    23 

Npw  York,  4d  N.  Y.  47,  56  ;  10  Am.  Rep.  327  ;  Raybold,  20  Pa.  St.  "?:3, 
311. 

20  2  Bish.  M.  W.  ?  51.  This  Is  a  matter  of  status,  not  a  property 
rlgbt. 

21  Clark  v.  McCrearv,  20  Miss.  347,  3">4  ;  Duncan  v.  Johnson,  23 
Mi.ss.  130,  132  ;  Ilenrv  v.  Billey,  2:.  N.  .T.  L.  302,  304,  .»5,  307  ;  Goodyear 
t'.  Rumbaugh,  13  Pa.  St.  4«V  4sl  ;  Jldliiii^iT  v.  Bausman,  45  Pa.  -St. 
52'2,  52:»;  McV^iUffh,  10  Phila.  4r,7.  4.-)S  ,  2  Bish.  M.  W.  2H5,  4G ;  post, 
\  105.    See  Archer  v.  Guill,  67  Oa.  195. 

22  Jackson  v.  Sublett,  10  Mon.  B.  467,  470 ;  Punn  v.  Sargent,  101 
Mass.  336,  ;«!) ;  Dasli  v.  Van  Kleeck,  7  Johns.  477;  5  Am.  Dec.  2!)1  ; 
Norris  v.  Bevea,  13  N.  Y.  273.  2.SS  ;  Westervelt  v.  Gregg,  12  N.  Y.  202, 
20.S,  20!)  ;  Rvfler  r.  Hulse,  24  N.  Y.  372 ;  O'Connor  v.  Harris,  81  N.  C. 
27a,  285  ;  iJost,  I  16.5. 

23  Stewart  M.  &  D.  f(  457. 

24  Noel  r.  EwinfT, !» Inrl.  37,  60  :  Hill  ?-.  Chambers,  30  Mich.  422. 427  ; 
Marshall  r.  King,  24  Miss.  8.5,  iio  ;  Sleight  r.  Read,  18  Barb.  159,  164, 
165 ;  Melizet,  17  Pa.  St.  440,  4->4  ;  55  Am.  Dec.  577 ;  Cooley  Const. 
Lim.  (35!))  445,  440  ;  2  Bish.  M.  W.  J  41). 

25  Farr  v.  Sherman,  11  Mich.  33,  34 ;  Tate  v.  Stooltzfoos,  16  Serg.  & 
R.  35, ;«  ;  16  Am.  Dec.  546. 

26  Powell  V.  Monson,  3  Mason,  347,  3.55  ;  Ware  r.  Owens,  42  Ala.  212. 
215 ;  Boyd  r.  Harrison,  36  Ala.  .533  ;  Noel  v.  Ewing,  !l  Ind.  37,  55,  57,  6;J  ; 
StroriK  I'.  CJlem,  12  Ind.  37,  40  ;  Frantz  r.  Harrow,  13  Did.  507  ;  I.ucas  %'. 
Sawvcr,  17  Iowa,  517,  521  ;  Yancv  v.  Smith,  2  Met.  1 1\  v.  i  40'^,  411  ;  Bar- 
bour, 46  Me.  !),  14;  lieiif  v.  Horst,  5.5  Md.  42,  45  ;  Masi-i'  ''.  Young,  40 
Miss.  IGl,  16!) ;  Merrill  r.  Slicrburiic,  1  N.  H.  llii),  204  ;  8  Am.  Dec.  52  ; 
Moore  v.  Mavor,  4  Saml.  456  ;  8  N.  Y.  110,  113  ;  Norwood  v.  Marrovv,4 
Dev.  &  B.  442,  4.50;  Philips  r.  Disney,  16  Ohio,  6:i9,  6.M  ;  Weaver  v. 
Gregg,  6  Ohio  St.  W7  ;  Jlelizet,  17  Pa.  St.  449,  455;  55  Am.  Dec.  578  ; 
Stewart  M.  &  D.  J  451  ;  poKt,  I  262. 

27  Boyd  v.  Harrison,  36  Ala.  533 ;  Lucas  v.  Sawyer,  17  Iowa,  517, 521  ; 
Philips  V.  Disney,  16  Ohio,  6.39,  6.54. 

28  Moore  v.  Mayor,  4  Sand.  4.5G  ;  S  N.  Y.  110, 112. 

2!)  Royston,  21  Ga.  161,  172 ;  Russell  r.  Rumsev,  m  111.  362,  .'.72  ; 
Dunn  T.  Sargeunt,  101  Muss.  .336,  340;  Jackson  v.  Edwards,  7  Paigp, 
.31)1  ;  22  Wend.  4!is.  ,-,i:'.,  .-.iii ;  Lawrence  v.  Miller.  1  Sand.  516  ;  2  Conist. 
245  ;  Sutton  V.  AskfW,  till  N.  C.  172,  177  ;  8  Am.  Rep.  500. 

.30  Johnson  r.  Vandyke,  6  McLean,  422,  428.  Cr)ntrn,'Rr<yA  v.  Har- 
rison, 36  Ala.  533  ;  Norwood  1\  Marrow,  4  Dev.  &  B.  442,  450." 

31  Boyd  V.  Harrison,  36  Ala.  533  ;  supra,  n.  27. 

32  Davis  r.  O'Ferrall,  4  Greene,  16S,  3.5S  ;  Strong  v.  Clem,  12  Ind.  "7, 
40,  41  ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ?  451 ;  sxipra,  n.  9. 

33  Kennerly  v.  Missouri,  11  Mo.  204,  206  ;  suprn,  n.  9. 

34  Stewart  M.  &  D.  §  4.57. 

35  Lucas  v.  Sawyer,  17  Iowa,  517,  521  ;  supra,  notes  24,  27. 

36  Almond  v.  Bonnell,  76  111.  5,36,  540,  541. 

?  23.  Retrospective  statutes  —  Curative  acts.  —  The  leg- 
islature may,  it  seems,  without  infringing  tiie  various 
constitutional  prohibitions/  i^.^ss  acts  curing  defects  in 

H.  &  W.  —  3. 


?   23  PAST  AXD  PRESENT  LAW.  26 

the  formation  of  a  marriage,"  and  thus  legitimate  chil- 
dren,^ and  give  marriage  property  riglits  from  the 
beginning.^  So  it  may  by  retrospective  laws  cure  and 
confirm  conveyances  defectively  acknowledged  or  exe- 
cuted ;''  but  whether  this  rule  applies  to  deeds  of  mar- 
r'o  I  women*  is  disputed."  On  tlie  one  hand,  it  is  said 
tin;  a  married  woman's  deed  is  but  an  execution  of  a 
power,^  and  if  defective  is  not  voidable  but  is  abso- 
lutely void; 8  that  an  act  malcing  such  a  deed  valid 
would  simply  divest  her  of  lier  property ; '"  and  that 
such  acts  are  therefore  "  void."  On  tlie  other  liand,  it 
is  said  that  a  law  wliich  carries  out  the  intent  of  a  party 
cannot  be  said  to  divest  her  of  her  rights  ;i''  tliat  one 
who  in  good  faith  executes  a  defoctiv(>  deed  assents 
beforehand  to  its  being  ratified,  and  waives,  as  she 
can,  the  constitu;io:ial  protection;'^  and  that  acts  rati- 
fying such  deeds  are  valid,'*  except  as  against  creditors 
with  liens  or  subsaquont  purcliaiers.'^  If  a  married 
woman's  deed  is  good  in  equity,  it  can,  of  course,  be 
made  good  at  law.'*  Tlius,  in  Maryland  an  act  curing 
a  defective  deed  l)y  husband  and  wife  of  the  husband's 
land  was  held  to  malce  the  deed  valid  as  to  tlie  hus- 
band, but  not  to  bar  tlie  wife's  dower  ;'3  while  in  Cali- 
fornia a  married  woman's  void  iiower  of  attorney  was 
cured  and  the  conveyance  thereunder  made  valid.-* 
But  the  legislature  cannot  divest  estates  by  correcting 
mistakes;  cannot,  for  example,  make  a  husband's  or 
■wife's  will  valid  after  his  or  her  death.=^'  When  a  law 
provides  that  marriage  and  recognition  by  the  father 
of  an  illegitimate  child  shall  logitimizo  such  child,  the 
child  may  be  born  before,  but  the  recognition  must 
take  place  after,  the  passage  cf  the  law .22 

1  Ante,  5  21. 

2  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ?  4". 

3  Harrison,  22   Md.  408,  4ns ;    Stevenson's  Heirs  v.  SulUvant,  5 
Wheat.  207,  2oJ  ;  Rioe  v.  Efford,  i  Hen.  &  M.  225. 


27  H03IE   AND   rOIIEION    LAW.  §   23 

4  GoshPD  V.  iStonington,  4  Conn.  ^O''.  224  ;  la  Am.  Bee.  121  ;  cases 
cited  .Stewart  M.  ct  1).  i  -J  7. 

.■>  fjrov.'  ('.  Till.  11  yiL  &;;,  an;  23  Am.  R3:>.  rs;  Journeay  v. 
Uil>so  1,  oii  Pa.  8t.  5;,  iiO. 

6  Discussed,  p-jst,  1}  20'2,  2.r.. 

7  Seo  Cooley  Const.  Lira.  37G,  379,  -{63,  -172  ;  cuses  cited  infra. 

8  See  post,  \  205. 

9  Grove  ?'.  Todd,  41  Md.  633,  (HI ;  20  Am.  Rep.  76 ;  p^M,  ??  236,  231, 270. 

10  Al  ibiima  v.  B;)vkii,  3S  Ala.  510,  513  ;  Russell  c  Ramsey,  3.i  111. 
3r.:,  37J-:i74  :  •  irove  cTo'1 1,  41  Jld.  ^V.,  611  ;  20  Am.  Rep.  76  ;  Shonk  v. 
Brow. 1,  61  1\l.  .St.  320,  32i 

11  ^«^e,  2  22. 

12  .Alabama  ?'.  Eoykin,  38  Ala.  510;  Russell  v.  Rumsey,  35  III. 
3f):,  372  ;  Laii-  /■.  Soulard,  15  III.  124  ;  (Jrove  v.  Todd,  41  Md.  633.  641  ;  20 
Am.  Rep.  76;  Slionk  t'.  Urowii,  61  Pa.  St.  32i),  32S;  Ortoa  v.  Noouan, 
2-1  Wis.  102,  104. 

13  Stiite  t>.  Newark,  27  N.  J.  L.  1*5,  l;>7 ;  Cooley  Const.  Lim.  378, 471 ,  -:7:. 

14  Ante,  \  21. 

15  Detitzel  v.  Waldie,  30  Cal.  13S,  145. 

16  Rand-ill  c.  Krci!?er,  23  Wall.  137,  141 ;  reverse  Watson  v.  Mercer, 
1  Watts,  :tv. ;  s  PeN-rs.  ss,  110  ;  Dentzd  v.  Waldie,  :!OCal.  i:«,  14-^  ;  Dow 
V.  Gould,  31  Cal.  654,  656;  CliesMut  v.  Shane,  16  Ohio  St.  5lii,  60  1,  610; 
Tate  V.  Stootzfoos,  16  Serg.  &  R.  35,  Ti.  :«  ;  16  Am.  Dec.  546  :  Barnet,  15 
Serg.  A  R.  72, 73;  16  Am.  Dec.  516 ;  Underwood  v.  Lilly,  10 Serg.  &  R.  101. 

17  Cooley  Const.  Lim,  379,  472  ;  ante,  J?  21,  22. 

18  Cliesriut  r.  Sliane,  16  Ohio  St.  590,  60:»,  610;  overruling  Good  v. 
Zercher,  12  Ohio,  3t>4,  ;i68.    See  supra,  note  16. 

1!)    Grove  i'.  Todd,  41  Md.  &33,  611  ;  20  Am.  Rep.  76. 

20  Dentzel  v.  Waldie,  30  Cal.  13S,  145.  See  Randall  v.  ICrei^er,  35 
Wall.  137,  14U. 

21  Alter,  67  Pa.  St.  341,  .345  ;  5  Am.  Bop.  4?!. 

22  Stevenson  v.  Sullivant,  5  Wheat.  21)7,  25) ;  Rice  t\  EfiTord,  3  Hen. 
&  M.  225. 

Article   IV.  —  rio:ii:i   .\xd   Foz^eiox   Law. 

§  24.  Foreign  la.v  recognized  bj'  comity. 

2  2.5.  Foreign  law  must  be  proved. 

I  26.  Nature  of  conHirt  of  laws. 

i  27.  Story's  rules. 

J  25.  E.Tect  of  marriag3  settlement. 

J  29.  Matrimonial  domicile  defined. 

i  30.  ice  (fo/H/cZ/fi  — status. 

5  31.  Lex  d'jinicUii  —  iiioviCilsH. 

§  32.  Eflfect  of  change  of  domicile. 

?  33.  Lex  rel  sitce  —  immovables. 

i  -U.  Lex  I  )ci  ac<  Its  —  valiJity  of  acts. 

J  3.5.  ie.c/ort  — procedure. 

J  36.  Wills  of  married  women. 

8  37.  Contracts  of  married  women. 


§   24-26  HOME   AND   FOREIGN   LAW.  28 

?  24.  Foreign  laiV  raso^nized  b/  comitj.  —  Every  State 
has  the  rigiii  to  Uself  djx'riiilu'  tli3  candition  and 
rights  of  persons  and  things  withhi  its  territory,  and  it 
is  only  by  comity  that  it  allows  such  condition  and 
rights  to  be  aS'estsi  by  foreign  law.^  Therefore  a  court 
will  never  enforc?  a  foreign  law  which  is  inconsistent 
Avith  the  fundamental  policy  or  institutions  of  its  own 
State.^  In  some  .S!:a'es  the  statute  law  provides  in  what 
cases  foreign  law  shall  bo  administered.*  Since  the  par- 
ties may  regulate  their  property  rights  as  they  please 
by  marriage  settlement,*  courts  will  rarely  refuse  to 
enforce  such  rights  a ,  regulated  by  foi-cign  law.»  So  it 
can  liardly  be  said  tliat  a  statute  giving  a  married 
woman  power  to  contracl;  fully  is  inconsistent  wiili  any 
i'.i nda:nental  policy.'' 

1  Minor  v.  Canlwoll,  "7  JIo.  350,  .S54. 

2  SMiiPV  1'.  Whit '.  !J  Ala.  728;  Siiifnrd  v.  Thompson,  IS  Oa.  5.>t, 
!'fi\  ;  Husihes  r.  Klinsffiulcr,  14  La.  An.  'M'l ;  Wil-so  i  i'.  ('arson,  VZ  M<1. 
S4.  75,  7fi  ;  Prentiss  »'.  Savage.  13  Ma.ss.  20,  24  ;  Insjnihani  r.  Uover.  13 
:.Li8S.  14*5 ;  7  Am.  Dec.  132  ;  Tappiiti  v.  Poor,  IS  M  iss.  41  i,  422  ;  Mjihor- 
11  -T  !'.  Hove, '.» Sme Jos  &  M.  247, 274  ;  Holmes  i:  llcy nolJs,  •'ij  Vt.  3a.  41. 

3  Cistro  V.  lilies,  22  Te.x.  47!t,  4:>7. 

4  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ??  32-43 ;  p-«^  5  2S. 

a  2  Bisli.  M.  W.  ?  .V7  ;  W'nvl  r.  Busyo,  7  Mon.  B.  133, 144  ;  Schefer- 
lingr.  Hniriuan,  4  Oliio  St.  241,  2.';0. 

fi  Wright  !'.  Remington,  41  N.  J.  L.  4S,  51, 52  ;  Holmes  t.  Reviiokls 
55  Vt.  3),  42. 

g  25.  Forei^  law  mu3t  ba  provoi.  —  Courtrs  d.->  not  take 
judicial  notice  of  foreign  law,  but  such  law  must  be 
proved  ;'  otherwise  the  law  of  the  forum-  or  the  com- 
mon law'  is  applied. 

1  See  fully  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ?  119. 

2  Drake  v.  Olover,  .30  Ala.  332,  .3SS ;  Hydrick  i-.  Burke,  30  Ark.  124  ; 
■\Vorthington  v.  Ha!ina,  23  Mich.  5:30.  524. 

3  LichtenbergT  v.  Oraham.  50  I-i'i.  'i^\ ;  Sto^^^s  r.  Macken,  62 
B;trb.  145,  143  ;  King  v.  O'Brien,  33  N.  Y.  Super.  4.),  TA. 

\  23.  Nature  of  conflict  of  ]aw3.  —  A  man  domiciled  in 
Maryland  and  a  wiiman  domiciled  in  New  York  may 
marrv  in  Pennsylvania  intending  to  live  in  Delaware  : 


29  HOME   AND   FOREIGN    LAW,  ?    27 

they  may  have  property  in  Illinois  and  Texas ;  they 
may  move  to  California  and  there  acquire  more  prop- 
erty ;  they  may  make  a  contract  in  Maine  and  sue  or 
be  sued  on  it  in  Massachusetts.  Since  the  law  in 
each  of  these  States  differs  materially  from  that  in  each 
of  tlie  others,  it  becomes  of  tl\e  first  importance  in  a 
particular  case  to  know  what  law  applies.  As  a  gen- 
eral rule  the  law  of  the  domicile  of  the  wife  before 
marriage,!  of  tlie  place  of  the  marriage,^  and  of  the 
place  of  temporary  residence,'  is  immaterial ;  and  the 
law  of  the  husband's  actual*  or  intended »  domicile  at 
the  time  of  the  marriage,  or  subsequently  acquired 
domicile^  settles  the  status  of  the  parties'  and  their 
cliildren,8  and  their  rights  over  movables  ;3  while  the 
law  of  the  State  where  it  is  governs  immovable  prop- 
erty,!"  the  law  of  tlic  place  when  an  act  is  done  deter- 
mines the  validity  of  the  act,'!  and  the  law  of  the  State 
where  the  suit  is  brought  regulates  all  matters  of  form 
and  procedure.!-'  But  a  marHago  settlement  may  de- 
termine what  law  shall  apply  as  to  all  property  rights.!^ 

1  Dicey  Dom.  268. 

2  Land,  U  Smedes  &  M.  99,  100  ;  State  v.  Barrow,  14  Tex.  178, 186. 

3  Le  Breton  v.  Nonchet,  1  Mart.  (La.)  60, 68, 71,  7-'! ;  5  Am.  Dec.  736. 

4  Dicey  Dom.  20),  pjst.  J  23. 

5  Glenn,  47  A  la.  204.  207  ;  post,  ?  29. 

6  FUS.S,  24  Wis.  256,  263,  204  ;  1  Am.  Rep.  180  ;  post,  ??  29,  32. 

7  Dow  !'.  Gould,  31  Cal.  629,  051,  fw2  ;  post,  i  30. 

8  Ross,  129  Mass.  213,  247 ;  post,  1 .30. 

9  Kraeraer,  52  Cal.  302,  305  ;  post,  k  31. 

10  Vertner  v.  Humphreys,  14  Smedes  &  M.  130,  142  ;  prist,  ?  3.3. 

11  Milliken  v.  Pratt,  125 Mass.  374,  ;»1, 332  ;  2s  Am.  Rep.  241 ;  post,  ?  34. 

12  Stoneman  v.  Erie,  52  N.  Y.  249,  4:!2  ;  jnst,  i  35. 

13  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ??  S2-4"s ;  Besse  v.  Pellochoux  73  [II.  255,  289, 
290 ;  24  Am.  Rep.  242  ;  post,  i  28. 

^  27.    Story's  rules.  —  So  many  eases'  refer  to  Story's 
rules'-  that  these  are  given  here  in  full :  — 
1.  Where  parties  are  married  in  a  foreign  country, 


§   27  HOME   AND   FOKEIGX   LAW.  30 

and  there  is  an  express  contract*  respecting  their  righls 
and  property,  present  and  future,  it  will  be  held  equally 
valid  everywhere,  unless  under  the  circumstances  it 
stands  prohibited  by  the  laws  of  the  country  where  it 
is  sought  to  be  enforced.*  It  will  act  directly  on  mov- 
able property  everywhere.^  But  as  to  immovable  prop- 
erty in  a  foreign  territory,  it  will  at  most  confer  only  a 
riglit  of  action,  to  be  enforced  according  to  the  jurisdic- 
tion rei  sitre.^ 

2.  Where  such  express  contract"  applies  in  terms  or 
intent  only  to  present  property,  and  there  is  a  cliango 
of  domicile,  the  law  of  the  actual  domicile  will  govern 
the  parties  as  to  all  future  accjuisitions.* 

3.  Wliere  there  is  no  express  contract,  the  law  of  the 
matrimonial  domicile  will  govern  as  to  all  the  rights  of 
the  parties  to  their  present  property  in  that  place,  and 
as  to  all  personal  property  everywhere,  uijon  the  pri:i- 
ciple  that  movables  have  no  ■•iitus,  or  ratlier,  that  they 
accompany'  the  jDerson  everywhere.^  As  to  immovable 
property  the  law  rei  .ntce  will  prevail.^" 

4.  Where  there  is  no  change  of  domicile  the  same  rule 
will  apply  to  future  acquirsitions  as  to  present  propcrtj'." 

5.  But  where  there  is  a  change  of  domicile,  the  law  of 
the  actual  domicile  and  not  of  the  matrimonial  domicile 
will  govern  as  to  all  future  acquisitions  of  movable 
property ,^2  and  to  all  immovable  property  the  law  rei 

SitCB.^^ 

[6.  The  real  matrimonial  domicile  is  the  place  where 
at  the  time  of  riiarria^e  the  parties  intend  to  fix  their 
abode,  sucli  intention  having  been  carried  out.^'] 
These  rules  apply  only  to  property  rights. 

1  See  p.  g.,  Kraemer,  52  Cal.  30^,  SO'i ;  Besse  v.  Pellochoux,  73  111. 
205,  283,  2;»0  ;  2-1  Am.  lieyi.  242 ;  Towiies  r.  Dnrbin,  3  Met.  (Ky.)  :«2,  3.")  i, 
3.=i7  ;  Newcomer  v.  Ori^m,  2  Md.  2:)7,  :»o ;  Onlronniix  v.  Rcy,  2  Sani. 
Ch.  33,  4.1 ;  Castro  v.  lilies,  22  Tex.  47a,  4')7, 4»8  ;  Fuss,  24  Wis.  256, 2ji, 
284  ;  1  Am.  Rep.  180. 

2  Story  Con  a.  Laws,  JH84-188. 


31  HOME   A^^D   FOKEl(i>-    LAW.  ?    28 

3  Discussed  In  Stewart  il.  &  D.  5  42. 

4  Stewart  M.  <fe  D.  J  4-  I  ante,  I  24. 

5  Fuss,  24  Wte.  256,  2G!,  211 ;  1  Am.  Hep.  ISO.    Consult posf,  ?  2S. 

6  €a.-,:ro  r.  lilies,  22  Tex.  470,  i'fj,  4:i8.     Consult  post,  U  28,  3-5. 

7  StoivaJt  M.  &  D.  §  42.    Cons\x\t post,  i  28. 

R  B'-sss  V.  Pellochoux,  73  111.  285,  289 ;  24  Am.  Rep.  243.  Consult 
post,  i  2 J. 

«    5Iason  v.  Fuller,  36  Conn.  160, 102 ;  p;st,  ??  31,  32. 

10  Frierson  v,  M'illiams,  .57  Miss.  451,  462  ;  post,  i  33. 

11  5Il:ior  r.  Cardwfll,  37  Mo.  ."50,  :i5fi. 

12  Fuss,  24  Wis.  250.,  233,  264  •  1  Am.  Rap.  180 ;  post,  ?  32. 

13  McDaniol  r.  Grace,  15  Ark,  455,  473  ;  post,  { I  32,  33. 

14  S-^oStorv  Coua.  Laws,  U  is:),  199.-  LeBreton  v.  Miles,  8  Pai?e. 
2ei,  2S3;  po!it,lZi. 

\  23.  Eff33t  of  marriage  settlemaat.  —  Marriage  settle- 
ments have  no  olTjct  upon  the  s;tatii>i  of  the  parties/  but 
dc'ter:xiine  only  all  or  a  part  of  their  property  rights.' 
To  effect  immovable  property  settlement  must  be  in 
matter  and  form  in  accordance  A\ith  the  l-ex  rei  sita'.^ 
But  if  valid  in  the  .State  where  it  is  made,  it  is  valid 
everywhere,  and  regulates  of  the  movables  designated 
no  matter  where  they  are  situate/  unless,  of  course,  it 
is  proliibited  in  tlie  State  where  it  is  souglit  to  be 
enforced.*  It  will  b3  construed  witli  reference  to  the 
law  of  the  intended  niii.riinonial  domicile  at  the  time  of 
tlie  marriage,  if  such  in.eutioii  has  been  carried  out  ;^  if 
not,  the  actual  domicile  of  the  husband  at  such  time;" 
and  such  is  the  rule  for  determining  whether  it  includes 
subsequent  acquisitions.*  T'le  effect  and  construction 
of  a  marriage  settlemant  is  not  varied  by  a  subsequent 
change  of  domicile.*  The  parties  may  make  it  part  of 
the  contract  that  their  rights  shall  be  subject  to  some 
otlior  law,  in  which  case  tlieir  rights  will  l)e  determined 
with  refereuce  to  .sueli  other  law.^'^  All  property  rights 
not  included  witliin  a  settlement  depend  upon  the  same 
law  as  if  tliere  were  no  .settlement." 

1  Stewart  M.  &D.  ^?  32,  ISl. 

2  Di-'cy  Dom.  p.  273,  citing  Story  Cond.  T.aws,  ?  143;  Westlake 
Couil.  Laws,J371;  FQ-.y^bevt  v.Turst,  Prvc.  Cb.  207;  Anstruther  v. 


I   29  HOME   AND   FOREIGN   LAW.  32 

Adair,  2  Mylne  &  K.  sn  ;  "Williams  3  Boav.  547  ;  Este  v.  Smvth,  IS 
Beav.  112 ;  Zi  Law  J  Cli.  705  :  Duncan  r.  Canriaii,  IS  Beav.  12-( ;  21  L.vw 
J.  Ch.  265  ,  Bvam,  1!)  Beav.  hi  ;  Watts  r.  Shrinipton,  21  Beav.  il7  ;  Van 
fJrutten  v.  Digb.v, SI  Beav.  Sfil  ;  Bank  v.  Outlibeit,  1  Rose,4ff? ;  JlcOor- 
niick  V.  Garnett,  5  De  Gex,  il.  &  G.  27S  ,*  considered  fully  in  Stewart 
M.  &  D  ??  32-i:?,  181-191. 

S  Bessp  r.  PeIloc*JOtix,  73  111.  235, 2S9, 290  ;  24  Am.  Dec.  242 ;  ante, 
5  27  ;  post,  i  33- 

4  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ?  42  ;  ante.  J  27. 

5  >J«<e,  §?  24,  27. 

fi  Davenport  v.  Karne,  70  111.  4fi5  ;  Le  Breton  r.  Miles,  8  Paig'p,  2m, 
2'li;  Dunean  r.  C'annan,  IS  Beav.  liS  ;  23  Law  J.  Ch.  265;  Dicey  Doni. 
PI).  273,  274  ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  i  41.    Consult  po.st,  ?  2J. 

7  See  State  r.  Barrow,  14  Tex.  178, 186.    Con.sult /xwf,  J  23. 

8  Dicey  Dom.  p.  275  ;  a>j<e,  ?  27.    Consult />ox<,  J  23. 

n  Di'-er  Dom.  p.  276,  citing  Duncan  v.  Caiman,  13  Beav.  123  ;  23 
I„iw  J.  Ch.  265. 

m  Dicey  Dom.  p.  275,  citing  Este  v.  Smytli,  23  Law  J.  Ch.  705;  IS 
Boav.  Hi 

tl  Dicey  Dom.  p.  275,  citinsr  4  Pliillimore  Inter.  Law,?47B ;  Hoare  ?>. 
Hornby,  2  Yomi!<e  &  C.  121;  ,\nstriitlier  r.  Adair, 2  Mylne  &  1C513, 
Duncan  v.  Caniian,  18  Beav.  123  ;  2:?  Law  J.  Ch.  255;  see  ante,  |  27. 

§  29.  Matrimonial  domicile  dofinod. — The  term  "matri- 
monial domicile "  used  in  this  article  may  mean ^  (1) 
The  actual  home  of  t!ie  man  at  the  time  of  tlie  mar- 
riage ;  (2)  the  intended  joint  homo  of  the  man  and 
woman  at  the  time  of  tlie  marriage;  (3)  the  homo  ac- 
quired by  tlie  husband  subsequent  to  the  marriage. 

1.  Actual  domicile.  One's  domicile  13  one's  per- 
manent homo.'  The  permanent  home  or  a  husband 
and  wife  —  of  the  family — is  their  matrimonial  domi- 
cile.^ The  husband's  domicile  is  in  law  the  domicile 
of  his  wife;^  the  husband  has  the  right  to  fix  (lie 
family  home;*  naturally,  then,  the  husband's  homo 
at  the  time  of  the  marriage  usually  becomes  the 
home  of  his  wife  and  family.  Therefore,  wlien  the 
lev  doinicilii^  is  applied  to  determine  the  condition 
and  rights  of  husband  and  Avife,  it  is  generally  tlio 
law  of  the  actual  domicile  of  the  husband  at  the 
time  of  the  marriage.^  Thus  A,  a  man  domiciled  in 
P'ngland,  marries  (anywhere)  B  domiciled  in  France. 
Tlie  rights  of  the  parties  to  movable  property  held  by 


33  HOME   AND   FOKEIGN   LAW.  g   29 

either  of  them  are  regulated  by  the  Uiw  of  England,  the 
man's  domicile,  just  as  if  B  also  had  been  domiciled 
tliere.' 

2.  Intended  domicile.  If  at  the  time  of  their  marriage 
both  parties  intend  to  at  once  make  their  common 
home  away  from  the  husband's  actual  domicile,^  and 
tliis  intention  they  fortliwith  after  their  marriage  carry 
out,9  tills  home  is  deemed  their  original  matrimonial 
domicile,  and  the  law  of  this  place  is  applied  in  all  case^ 
in  which  that  of  the  husband's  actual  domicile  would 
otlierwise  have  been.^"  Thus,  A  and  B,  domiciled  in 
Maryland,  marry  with  the  intention  of  at  once  settling  in 
Illinois,  wliich  they  do ;  their  respective  rights  to  their 
movables  owned  at  the  time  of  tlieir  marriage  are  regu- 
lated by  Illinois  law." 

3.  Nero  domicile.  A  husband  and  wife  who  have  a 
matrimonial  domicile  according  to  one  of  the  above 
rules,  may  change  their  home  (this  being  within  tlie 
discretion  of  the  husband i'^)  and  acquire  a  new  matri- 
monial domicile,  the  law  of  wliieli  will  regulate  some  of 
their  rights  dependant  upon  domicile  wliile  the  law  of 
the  old  domicile  will  continue  to  regulate  the  rest.'^ 
Thus,  A,  a  man,  domiciled  in  Missouri,  marries  B,  domi- 
ciled in  Micdiigan.  Wliilst  in  Missouri  they  make  two 
tliousand  dollai-s,  in  trade.  Tliey  afterwards  settle  in 
California  and  while  tliere  domiciled  make  one  thou- 
sand dollars.  Their  rights  over  the  two  thousand  dol- 
lars are  goverTied  by  Missouri  law  but  their  rights 
over  the  one  tJiousand  dollars  are  governed  by  Califor- 
nia law." 

1  Discussed  in  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ??  222,  223;  Dicey  Dom.  pp.  -il, 
44,  :531. 

2  See  Dicey  Dom.  p.  269  ;  1  Bish.  M.  &  D.  ?  404. 

:5    Stewart  51.  &  D.  J  221 ;  Cheevor  v.  Wilson,  8  Wall.  108, 124. 

4  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ?  253  ;  Hair,  10  KicU  Eq.  163, 17£. 

5  See  post,  ??  30,  ?.\,  34,  3S,  37. 


I    30  HOME   AND   FOREIGN    I.AW.  34 

0  Haydcn  v.  Nutt,  4  La.  An.  GS,  67,  6"< ;  State  r.  Barrow,  14  Tex. 
17S,  186  ;  Bicey  Dom.  p.  269  ;  cases  cited  infra. 

7  Dicey  Dom.  p.  269.    As  to  movables,  see  post,  I  31. 

8  Huyden  ;•.  Nutt,  4  La.  An.  Gd.  67,  6S. 

9  Kayden  r.  Xutt,  4  La.  An.  66,  67  ;  State  v.  Barrow,  14  Tex.  178, 
180  ;  Dicey  Dom.  p.  27t, 

10  See  Glenn,  47  Ala.  204.  207  ;  Mason  r.  Fuller,  36  Conn.  160,  162  ; 
Davenport  x\  Karne,  70  111.  465  ;  Arendell,  10  La.  An.  .566, 567  ;  Havdcii 
)'.  Nutt,  4  L;i.  An.  66,  07;  Mason  v.  Homer.  10.5  Mass.  116,  livi;  Vert- 
ii^r )'.  Huniplirevs,  14  .Smertes  &  M.  VMS,  142  ;  Land,  14  .smedes  &  M.  9!l, 
ion  ;  Lelireton  r.  Miles,  8  Paige  261,  265  ;  .State  v.  Barrow,  14  Tex.  178, 
1»6.    Not  settled  in  England:  Dicey  Dom.  p.  269. 

11  See  Stfite  r.  Barrow,  14  Tex.  178, 136. 

12  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ??  221, 25.3. 

13  See  Kendall  v.  Coons,  I  Bush,  5.30,  531  ;  Gldnev  i-.  Moore,  86  N.  C. 
434,  491  ;  Fuss,  24  Wis.  256,  263,  264  ;  1  Am.  Rep.  180  ;  post,  I  32. 

14  Dicey  Dom.  pp.  270,  272  ;  iMst,  li.  31,  32. 


§  30.  Los  domicilii  —  Status. — .Status  generally  de- 
pends upon  domicile.' 

1.  The  status  of  husljand  and  wife  depends  on  the 
law  of  the  matrimonial  domieile.'^  TIuis,  no  state  but 
tliat  of  the  matrimonial,  or  of  the  wife's  separate  dom- 
ieile,  can  cliangc  (by  divorce)  the  status  of  a  husband  or 
a  wife  ;*  a  husband's  marital  riglits  depend  on  tlie  law 
of  the  matrimonial  domicile  ;  *  as  does  his  liability  to  be 
sued  for  his  wife's  antenuptial  del)ts,^  But  a  husband's 
right  to  correct  and  restrain  liis  wife  is  ratlier  a  matter 
of  police  regulation,  and  depends  on  the  law  of  the 
forum.s 

2.  A  married  woman'.s  capacities  or  disabilities  are 
determined  by  the  law  of  the  place  where  the  act  is 
done,'  tliough  logically  they  should  depend  on  the  law 
of  the  matrimonial  domicile.^  Thus,  generally  the  va- 
lidity of  a  married  woman's  contract  depends  on  the 
law  of  the  place  where  it  is  made,*  but  the  validity/  of 
Iier  will  on  the  la^v  of  her  domicile."' 

3.  The  status  of  parent  and  child  depends  on  the  law 
of  the  parent's  domicile.^'  But  a  parent's  right  to  chas- 
tise a  child  is  rather  a  matter  of  police  regulation,  and 


35  HOXE   AXD    KOIIEIGN    LAW.  ?    30 

depends  on  the  law  of  the  forum,i-  as  does  a  parent's 
liability  in  bastai-dy  proceed! ngs.^^ 

4.  Legitimacy  depends  on  domicile."  The  legitimacy 
of  a  child  born  or  begotten  during  the  existence  of  an 
alleged  marriage  between  its  father  and  mother  de- 
pends on  the  validity  of  their  marriage.i^  If  born  out 
of  wedlock,  the  law  of  the  father's  domicile  at  the  time 
of  its  birth  determines  whether  the  child  becomes,  or 
may  become,  legitimate  in  consequence  of  the  subse- 
quent marriage  of  its  parents.'^  But  a  child  may  be 
recognized  as  legitimate  and  yet  be  held  incapable  of 
inheriting  real  estate  under  statutes  of  inheritance.'^ 
So  a  special  act  of  a  legislature  declaring  a  child  legiti- 
mate has  no  extraterritorial  effect. '^  But  in  determin- 
ing the  legitimacy  of  a  child  born  before  the  marriage 
of  its  liarents,  the  domicile  of  the  motlier,'**  the  place  of 
the  child's  birth,2«  and  the  place  of  the  celebration  or 
consummation  of  the  marriage'^'  are  immaterial. 

1  Stewart  M.  *  D.  U  113-117,  220  ;  Dicey  Dom.  pp.  159-168.  Unless 
it  is  a  penal  status,  or  is  contrary  to  the  policy  of  the  law  of  the 
forum:  Uicev  Doni.  p.  Wl;  si'i-  Westlake  Inter.  L.  J?  :5:)7-107  ;  Story 
Contl.  ly.  55.Tb-10fi  ;  4  Phillim.  Inter.  L.  JJSfio,  ;<83,  522-564;  Wharton 
Conll.  L.  U  *4-126  ;  Koss,  12,»  Mass.  24:i,  246.  247. 

2  De  Greuchv  r.  Wills,  Law  R.  4  C.  P.  D.  362.  366  ;  Dow  v.  Gould 
31  C'al.  62!),  a5I,  652:  Kellv  v.  Davis,  28  La.  An.  773,  774;  Land,  14 
Smedos  &  M.  'JU,  100.  But  see  Bank  v.  Williams,  46  Miss.  618,  624  ;  12 
Am.  Rep.  319. 

3  Stewart  M.  &  D.  55  201,  212-22:3. 

4  Land,  14  Smedes  &  M.  99,  100. 

5  De  Greuchy  v.  Wills,  Law  R.  4  C.  P.  D.  362,  364,  366. 

6  Dicev  Dom.  p.  193  ;  citing  4  Phillim.  Inter.  L.  i  486 :  1  Bish.  M.  & 
D.  5  407  ;  Wharton  Conll.  L.  ?  120 ;  I'olydore  c.  Prince,  Ware,  402. 

7  Milliken  v.  Pratt,  125  ZWass.  374, 3'^1, 382 ;  28  Am.  Rep.  241 ;  Graliam 
V.  First  National  Banlv  of  Norfolk,  84  N.  V.  393,  402  ;  38  Am.  Rep.  528. 

8  Because  it  is  a  part  of  her  status:  See  Story  Confl.  L.  ?  136 
p.  233 ;  Dicey  Dom.  pp.  159-16.S. 

9  Post,  ?  37. 

10  Post,iSG. 

11  See  Gambier,  7  Sim.  263,  270. 

12  Dicey  Dom.  p.  169  ;  Sherwood  t\  Ray,  1  Moore  P.  C.  C.  3.5.%  398 ; 
.To:i:istone  r.  Beattie,  10  Clark  &  F.  42,  114,  115;  Nugent  v.  Vetzera, 
L.IW  R.  2  Eq.  704. 


?    31  HOME   AND   FOREIGX   LAW  36 

n  Kolbe  r.  People,  85  111.  nr,G.  ."."7 :  Diimes  v.  State,  7  Wis.  672,  673. 
But  see  Graham  v.  Monsergh,  22  Vt.  54:5,  545 ;  Egleson  v.  Battles,  20 
Vt.  548,  5.^1. 

H  Boss,  129  Mass.  243,  247  ;  seo  II  >rv3y  v.  Ball,  32  Ind.  9%  93  ; 
S'ott  V.  Key,  11  La.  An.  232, 237  ;  Smith  v.  Kelly,  23  Miss.  167,  170  ;  n'l 
Am  Dec.  87  ;  Don,  4  Drew.  I'M,  I'M;  Skottowe  v.  Young,  Law  R.  11 
Eq.  474,  477  ;  Shaw  v.  Oould,  Law  R.  3  H.  L.  55,  70. 

15  Dicey  Dom.  p.  18L    See  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ?|  45, 106-12L 

16  DIcev  Dom.  p.  181 ;  citiner  Udiiv  v.  XJdiiv,  Law  R.  t  S.  &  D.  App. 
441  ;  Re  Wright's  Trusts,  25  Law  J.  C'h.  fiJl  ;  2  Kay  <fc  J.  5)5  ;  see  Don. 4 
Drew,  194, 197  ;  Doe  v.  Vardill,  5  Burn.  A  C  .  438,  4.55  ;  11  Eng.  C.  L.  26'; ;  7 
Clark  &  F.  895,  898,  925;  Shaw  v.  Ciovild,  Law  R.  3  H.  L.  55,  70  ;  Skot- 
towe V.  Young,  Law  R.  11  Eq.  474,  477  ;  Lingen,  45  Ala.  411,  414  ;  Spott 
V.  Kev,  11  La.  An.  232,  237;  Barnum,  42  JId.  251,  ;»5,  307,  .325;  Ross,  129 
Mass."  243,  246-2.56;  Smith  v.  Kellv,  23  Miss.  167,  170;  5.5  Am.  Dec.  87; 
Smith  V.  Derr,  34  Pa.  St.  126,  128  ;  Honey  v.  Clark,  37  Tex.  GiC. 

17  Don,  4  Drew.  1!M,  197 ;  27  Law  J.  Ch.  9.8, 100  ;  Skottowe  v.  Young, 
Law  R.  11  Eq.  474,  477;  Birt whistle  v.  Vardill.  2  Clark  *  F.  571,  57:!, 
.577 ;  Doe  v.  Vardill,  5  Barn.  &  ( '.  4:f5,  4.54,  455  ;  Shaw  v.  Goul<l,  I.iw  H. 
3  H.  L.  5.5,  70;  Lingen,  45  Ala.  411,  414,  415;  Tlarvey  r.  Ball,  :«  Ind.  9s, 
91;  Smith  v.  Derr,  'M  Pa.  St.  126,  128.  Contra,  Ross,  129  Mass.  24:5, 
250 ;  Scott  V.  Key,  11  La.  An.  2.32,  2.37. 

18  Barnum,  42  Md.  251,  .305,  307,  :52.5.  Contra,  Scott  ti.  Key,  11  La.  An 
252,  237. 

19  Wright,  2  Kay  &  J.  .595,  610  ;  Munro,  7  Clark  &  F.  842. 

20  Wright.  2  Kav  &  J.  595,  610,  61 1 ;  Udnv  v.  Udny,  Law  B.  1  S.  «fe 
D.  App.  441 ;  Munro,  7  Clark  &  F.  842 ;  Dicey  Dom.  p.  185. 

21  Munro,  7  Clark  <fe  F.  842  ;  Dicey  Dom.  p.  186. 

2  31.  Lex  domicilii  —  Movables. — The  mutual  rights 
of  husband  and  wife  to  each  others  movables  are 
determined  by  the  law  of  the  matrimonial  domicile, '  at 
tho  time  of  the  marriage,  if  the  movables  are  owned  at 
such  time,'-  and  if  they  are  subsequently  acquired,  at 
tlie  time  of  sucli  acquisition.^  Thus,  the  resj^ective 
rights  of  husband  and  wife  domiciled  in  New  York  to 
tlie  wife's  interest  in  an  intestate's  personalty  distrib- 
uted in  England  depend  on  New  York  law.*  So  when 
tlie  Louisiana  real  estate  of  a  married  woman  who  is 
domiciled  with  her  husband  in  Maryland  is  converted 
into  personalty,  the  husband's  marriage  rights  on  such 
pei*sonalty  attach  according  to  Maryland  law.*  So,  A 
and  B  have  their  matrimonial  domicile  in  England,  and 
there  make  two  thousand  dollars  in  trade.  They  then 
move  permanently  to  Virginia  where  they  make  one 


37  HOME  AND   FOREIGN  LAW.  §  82 

thousand  dollars  in  trade.  Their  respective  rights  to 
the  two  thousand  dollars  are  governed  by  English 
law,*  but,  to  the  one  thousand  dollars  by  Virginia  law.'^ 
Whether  property  is  moval)le  or  immovable  depends 
on  the  law  of  the  place  where  it  is  lound,^  though  there 
is  authority  to  the  effect  that  it  depends  on  the  domicile 
of  the  claimants.^  Still  courts  will  sometimes  refuse  to 
apply  any  but  the  local  law.'"  The  rights  of  the  sur^ 
vivor  in  the  movables  of  the  deceased  dei^end  upon 
law  of  the  matrimonial  domicile  at  the  time  of  the 
deceased's  death.'' 

1  Actual  or  intended :  Ante,  i  29.  Matrimonial  domicile  defined  : 
Ante,  I  2IJ. 

2  Kraemer.  52  Cal.  .302,  305  ;  Newcomer  v.  Orem,  2  Md.  297,  SKff, ;  50 
Am.  l»ce.  717 ;  Dicey  Dom.  p.  2(W,  citing  Stein,  1  Rose,  4ffJ.  481 ;  tielk- 
riff  )'.  D;ivis.  2  Rose,  2;il  ;  Story  Confl.  I^.  'i  1.S4  ;  Westlake  Inter.  L. 
1  Sfifi  ;  4  I'liillim.  Inter.  L.  ??  47(M7!J;  Savigny  Contl.  L.  i  :?79,  pp.  240- 
247  ;  1  Foelix  Inter.  L.  J  (lO.    See  ante,  i  27. 

3  Ilinman  v.  Parkis,  Xi  Conn.  ISS,  107 ;  Townes  v.  Durbin,  3  Mot. 
(Ky.)  -m,  :«7 ;  Beard  v.  Rtisve,  7  Mon.  B.  13-'.,  142  ;  Gale  v.  Davis,  2 
Mart.  (La.)  304;  King  v.  O'Brien,  33  N.  Y.  Super.  4  i,  56  ;  Stokes  v. 
Machen, :«  Barb.  145,  149  ;  Gidnev  v.  Moore,  86  N.  C.  4^4,  491 ;  Fuss,  24 
Wis.  2.-)6,  263,  264;  1  Am.  Rep.  ISO;  see  2  Bish.  M.  W.  J  509;  1  Blsh 
M.  it  I).  ?  405  ;  ante,  ?  27  ;  pout,  i  32.  This  point  is  not  settled  in  Eng- 
land :  Dicey  Dom.  pp.  2eS-270. 

4  Lett,  7  Law  R.  Jr.  132, 143. 

5  Newcomer  r>.  Orem,  2  Md.  297,  305  ;  53  Am.  Dec.  717. 

6  In  spite  of  change  of  domicile,  see  post,  ?  32. 

7  Dicey  Dom.  p.  272. 

8  Newcomer  v.  Orem,  2  Md.  297,  .305 ;  56  Am.  Dec.  717. 

9  Duncan  v.  Dick,  1  Miss.  281,  286,  287. 

10  Smith  V.  McAtee,  27  Md.  420,  438  ;  ante,  ?  24. 

11  Newcomer  v.  Orpm,  2  Md.  297,  309;  Corrie,  2  Bland.  488,  499; 
Harrall  v.  Wallis,  37  N.  J.  Eq.  458;  Dicev  Dom.  p.  276;  Westlake 
Inter.  L.  ?  373  ;  Savigiiv  Confl.  L.  ?  379,  pp.  :J47,  343.  Consnltpost,  i  K  ; 
but  see  Bonatl  v.  Welsch,  24  N.  Y.'  157, 163. 

§  32.  Effect  of  change  of  domicile.  —  A  change  of  domi- 
cile immediately  after  marriage,  in  pursuance  of  an  in- 
tention formed  prior  to  marriage,  may  render  the  new 
home  the  real  matrimonial  domicile.'  And  movable 
property  acquired  after  the  acquisition  of  a  new  matri- 
monial domicile  is  governed  by  the  law  of  such  new 
II.  &  w.  — 4. 


5  32  HOME   AXD   FOREIGX   LAW.  3S 

domicile.-  But  a  change  of  domicile  does  not  affect 
rights  alreaJy  vested'  (though  a  contrary  rule  seems  to 
prevail  in  Missouri)  :*  it  does  not  transfer  a  husband's 
property  back  to  him  free  of  his  wife's  rights  according 
to  the  law  of  the  old  domicile.'  nor  does  it  give  her  new 
rights  in  her  previously  acquired  property;^  so  the 
courts  of  her  new  home  will  protect  the  wife's  property 
according  to  the  married  woman's  property  act  of  the 
lid  domicile."  Still,  though  moving  into  another  State 
does  not  affect  title  to  and  rights  in  existing  propcny, 
subsequent  transfers  of  such  property  must  conform 
with  the  lex  loci.^  Also,  the  survivor's  rights  as  next 
of  kin  or  legatee'  (rights  which  do  not  vest  during 
coverture)  ^°  depend  on  the  domicile  at  the  time  of  the 
deceased's  death." 

1  Ante,  I  29 ;  State  r.  Barrow,  U  Tex.  179. 1^,  1S7. 

2  Ante,  {  32  ;  GaJe  v.  Davis,  4  Mart.  (La.)  &to,  &13. 

3  Ijrake  r.  Glover,  30  Ala.  ."K,  3>0 :  Cahalan  v.  Monroe.  70  Ala.  271. 
275  :  O'Xfill  y.  Henderson,  l-j  Ark.  2S5.  241 ;  60  .\m.  Deo.  iVi^  ;  Parrott 
r.  Xiinino,  2S  Ark.  351,  :ti6  ;  Hiimun  v.  Parkis,  St  Conn,  iss,  itrr; 
Tinkler  i:  Cox.  6i  III.  11') :  Dubois  > .  Jackson,  49  lU.  4n,  52 :  S'linrniaii  r. 
Marlev,  29  Ind.  4-58,  4ft4  ;  Beard  r.  Biisve,  7  Mon.  B.  i:«.  142,  144,  I4«  ; 
Townes  v.  Durbin,  3  Mi  t.  Kv.)  .3.52,  357  ;  Kendall  r.  Coons.  1  Bush.  o.30. 
•541  ;  Tllexan  r.  Wilson,  4-3  Me.  1S«.  1«9,  190 ;  Bond  r.  Cummin^s.  7<'  Me. 
125,  rJfi;  Woodcock  v.  Rt-ed,  5  .Allen,  267,  2'Hi ;  Mever  r.  Mf  Cabe,  7:5 
Mo.  2:«;  State  v.  Chatham,  10  Mo.  App.  4*:;  Harrall  r.  Wallis.  37 
X.  J.  Eq.  4.5S  :  29  .A.lb.  L.  J.  170 :  Bonati  v.  ^'elsch,  24  N.  V.  157,  Ifa ; 
King  r.  O'Brien,  33  X.  Y.  Super.  4!t.  56  ;  Stokes  r.  Macken.  62  Barb. 
145,  149  :  Cravcrolf  >•.  Morehead,  67  X.  C.  422,  424  ;  Oliver  v.  Robertson, 
41  Tex-  422,  425 ;  Hall  f.  Harris,  11  Tex.  30O,  .306. 

4  Rights  to  personalty  depend  on  domicile,  and  change  with 
change  of  domicile :  Minor  r.  Cardwell.  37  Mo.  3.50,  3.56.  But  see  Mever 
:•.  MeCabe,  73  Mo.  iW. 

5  King  f.  O'Brien,  33  X.  V.  Super.  49,  .56  ;  giipra,  n.  3. 

6  Bond  f.  Cummings,  70  Me.  12.5, 126 ;  tupra,  n.  3. 

7  Schurman  r.  Marlev,  29  Ind.  45S,  464. 
S    Drake  f.  Glover,  .30  Ala.  3S2,  3S9. 

9    See  Stewart  M.  <fc  D.  ??  452,  456,  457. 

10  See  anie,  }  22. 

11  Townes  r.  Durbin,  3  Met.  (Kv.")  a32,  a>5;  Newcomer  r.  Orem,2 
Md.  2f>7,  ;»5;  .56  Am.  Dec.  717;  Duncan  ?•.  Dick.  1  Walker  (Miss.1 
2S1,  28:i-2S5;  Jones  c.  Gerock,  6  Jones  Eq.  IBO,  193;  ante,  {31.  But 
see  BonaU  v.  Welsch,  24  X.  Y.  157, 163. 


39  HOME    AND    FOREIGN    LAW.  §   33 

\  33.  Leat  rd.  sitae  —  Immovables.  —  Rights  of  husband 
and  wife  in  unniovable  proijerty  of  either  are  deter- 
mined Ijy  the  law  of  the  State  where  snch  property  is.^ 
In  compliance  with  such  law  such  property  must  be 
willed'  or  conveyed,'  and  according  to  such  law  it 
descends.*  And  a  foreign  marriage  contract  only  gives 
a  right  of  action  to  be  enforced  according  to  the  juris- 
diction rei  sitfE.*  Tlius,  a  statute  barring  dower  by 
divorce  has  no  extra  territorial  effect.^  But  when  real 
estate  is  converted  into  personalty,  the  rights  in  the 
latter  are  at  once  determined  by  the  law  of  the  matri- 
monial domicile,  especially  i"  such  personalty  is  moved 
into  another  State.®  Whether  property  is  movable  or 
immovable  defends  on  the  law  of  the  State  where  it  is,' 
tiiough  tliis  has  been  held  to  dej:>end  on  the  law  of  the 
matrimonial  domicile.'**  Shares  in  corporations  may 
thus  be  immovable  property,"  and  other  property  may 
be  expre>sly  made  defendant  on  the  local  law."  Thus, 
a  bank  dividend  due  a  wife  is  receipted  for  by  the  hus- 
band ;  whetlier  the  receipt  is  good  depends  on  the  law 
of  the  State  where  tlie  bank  is.'* 

1  Olonn.  47  Aliu  2rn,  207;  MclJanif-l  r.  Grace,  15  Ark.  465,  478: 
Mason  r.  Fuller,  :«i  Cum.  im.  162:  Harvey  v.  Ball,  32  Ind.  lis,  •»; 
Hawkins  r.  Ragsdale,  S")  Kv.  :<5S,  'SA  ;  Newcomer  »-.  Orem.  2  >Id.  Ca7. 
305:  56  Am.  Dec.  717;  Mason  r.  Homer,  IW  Mass.  116,  119;  Vertner  r. 
Huniphrt'.vs.  HSmedes*  M.  VVi,  Hi;  Frierson  r.  ^\^Uiams,  37  Miss. 
451, -IfH  ;  Lapice  v.  fjfreanfiean.  1  Miss.40.  4s.'.;  Duncan  r.  Di^-k  1  Mi.ss. 
281,  2*S ;  I>epa.s  t:  Mavo,  11  Ni-v.  HH,  :ilH  :  Jones  r.  Gerock,  6  Jones  Eq. 
ino.lW:  fastro  f.  Illies,22  T' -x.  47!t.  4i7;  Oil!  r.  Cook,  11  Vt.l40.14;<; 
Hill  !•.  Wyiin,  4  W.  Va.  4.>J,  4'w ;  Shaw  r.  Gould,  Law  R.  3  H.  L.  5.5, 70 ; 
ante,  i  27. 

2  Dopa-s  V.  Mayo,  11  Mo.  314,  31S ;  43  Am.  Dtc  S=;  po-rf,  J  ^ 

a  McDani-'l  r.  Grace.  15  Ark.  465,  47S  ;  Lapice  r.  Goreandean,  1 
MLss.  4su,  4s.j ;  see  j)>*/,  J  :!7. 

4  Jonea  r.  Geroek,  6  Jones  Eq.  ino.  IfM.  See  Shaw  r.  Gould.  Low 
R.  3  H.  1,.  5.1,  70  :  Lingren,  45  Ala.  411, 414,  415  ;  Smith  r.  Durr,  VA  Pa.  St. 
126,  12i ;  atUe,  I  27. 

5  Castro  r.  lilies,  22  Tex.  479,  497.  438 ;  ante,  U  ^,  2i 

6  Hawkins  v.  Ra^dale,  80  Ky.  3.>!,  r-M;  consult  .S;e\rt,  M.  &  D.  ?  446. 

7  ^Newcomer  r.  Orem,  2  Md.  29/,  305 ;  56  Am.  Dec.  717 ;  ante,  |  32. 

8  Hill  r.  WjTin,  4  W.  Va.  453  455. 

9  Newcomer  v.  Orem,  2  Md.  2X',  305  ;  56  Am.  Dec.  717. 


l^   34-35  HOME   AND   FOREIGN    LAW.  40 

10    Duncan  v.  Dick,  1  Miss.  281,  288. 

n  Graham  v.  First,  R4  N.  Y.  3<)3,  3!)0,  400;  38  Am.  Rep.  528.  See 
Drake  v.  (ilover,  30  .\la.  3S-.',  »*» ;  Holtliaiis  v.  Farris,  •;4  Kaii-s.  784; 
Hill  )'.  Wri£jlU,  12!l  Mass.  2')6 ;  Howell  r.  f^assopolis,  :«  .Mich.  471  ; 
Harnill  r.  Wallis,  X  X.  J.  Eq.  4.')8  ;  29  Alb.  L.  J.  170,  172;  Graham  v. 
Norfolk,  20  Huu,  326 

12  Drake  v.  Glover,  30  Ala.  382,  389  ;  Smith  v.  McAtee,  27  Md.  420, 

■m. 

13  Graham  v.  First,  S(  N.  Y.  3!».3,  391 ;  .'W  Am.  Rep.  528 ;  see  Harrall 
V.  Wallis,  37  N.  J.  Eq.  4o8 ;  23  Alb.  L.  J.  170, 172,  n. 

?  34.  Lex  loci  actus — Validitj  of  acts.  —  Tliough  per- 
sonal capac-ity  as  u  inatler  of  status  .sliould  be  deter- 
mined l)j'  the  law  of  domicile,^  tlie  validity  of  an  act  is 
often  said  to  depend  on  the  law  of  the  State  where  it  is 
done.^  Til  is  rule  applies  particularly  to  married 
women's  contracts.' 

1  Ante,  i  30.  See  Dow  r.  Gonlfl,  31  Cul.  620,  652  ;  Frierson  r.  Wil- 
liams, .~  Miss.  451,  402. 

2  MillikPn  r.  Pratt,  12.->  Mass.  .■?74,  .^'<1,3S2;  2*!  Am.  R<.p.  24L  See 
Gr.ihaiu  r.  First,  h4  N.  Y.  asvi,  402  ;  38  Am  Rep.  528. 

3  Port,  J  37. 

^  35.  Lex  fori  —  Procedure.  —  I?y  Avhatever  law  a  r^ght 
is  determined,  in  enforcing  sucli  rijjht  the  form  of  the 
remedj'^  and  the  competency  of  evidence  are  jiovcrned 
by  tlie  law  of  the  foruin.^  Thus,  a  married  woman 
domiciled  in  Maryland  has  title  to  her  movables  by 
law  of  !Maryland,^  but  sues  in  respect  thereto  in  New 
York,  according  to  forms  and  mode  there  prescribed.' 
So,  even  if  a  married  woman's  contract  is  valid,  it  can- 
not be  enforced  in  a  State  where  a  personal  judgment 
ex  contrnctu  agsiinst  a  married  woman  is  unknown  \*  it 
must  be  enforced,  if  at  all,  in  equitj',  though  enforci- 
ble  at  law  where  made.^ 

1  Hallev  V.  Ball,  66  111.  250.  2.->2  ;  Bank  r.  Williams,  46 Miss.  618,  62«i- 
629:  12  Am.  Rep.  W\ ;  Stoneman  r.  Erie,  .52  N.  Y.  420,  432  ;  I.e  Breton 
V  Milfs,  8  Pnisre,  261,  271 ;  Holmes  v.  Reynolds,  55  Vt.  39,  41 ;  Abbott 
Trial  Ev.  p.  161. 

2  Ante,  ?  31. 

3  Stoneman  i\  Erie,  52  N.  Y.  429, 432. 

4  Bank  v.  Williams,  46  Miss.  618, 626, 629 ;  12  Am.  Rep.  319. 

5  Halley  v.  Ball,  66  111.  2.50,  252, 


41  HOJIE    AND   FOREIGX   LAW.  §?    36-37 

?  36.  "Wills  of  marrisd  womdii.  —  A  will  of  immovable 
property  must  be  executed  in  accordance  with  the  law 
of  the  State  where  such  property  is  ;'  a  will  of  moA^able 
property  in  accordance  with  the  law  of  the  testatrix's 
domicile  at  the  time  of  her  death  ;^  and  the  word  "exe- 
cuted," in  this  section,  includes  forms  of  the  T\'ill, 
capacity  to  make  the  will,  and  power  to  dispose  of  the 
property  willed.^  In  some  States  there  are  special 
provisions  in  regard  to  the  effect  oi  foreign  wills.* 

1  1  Jarm.  Wills.  1,  nitins  Storv  Confl.  I..  1 474  ;  4  Kent  Com.  513  ;  2 
Kent  Com.  4-.'y  ;  1  IC  of.  Wills,  a.i7  ;  Darby  v.  Mayer,  10  Wheat,  ■i&i: 
Kern-.  Mi>on.  !)  WlrMt.  ."()">;  U.  H.  v.  Crosby,  7  < 'ranch,  115;  Varner 
r.  Hevil,  17  .\la.  'Jsi.  :  Nori  is  v.  Harris,  In  Cal.  22ti,  i')'J  ;  Kiohards  v. 
Miller,  r>2  IIU  417;  Callowav  v.  Doe,  1  Blaekf.  :i7J  ;  Cornelison  v. 
lirowning,  10  Mon.  B.  4i") ;  Potter  i>.  Titconfib,  21  Me.  .•«0,  .30:!;  Ross, 
r2'J  vlass.  24:(,  •.!45 ;  Evre  r.  storer,  37  N.  H.  114;  Knox  v.  Jones,  47 
■N.  Y.  ."iSi);  Bailev,  S  Ohio,  239;  Williams  v.  Saunders,  5  Cold.  60; 
Enohin  r.  Wylie,  10  H.  L.  Cas.  1. 

2  1  Jami.  \\nils  2,  citing  4  Kent  Com.  513,  .524  ;  Harrison  i'.  Nixon, 
9  Pct'Ts,  4'«1,  .VM,  ."WS;  Smith  v.  Union,  5  Peters,  518;  Turner  v.  Fen- 
ii<'r,  l!l  .\l:u  IW).') ;  I.awrenc"  v.  Kitteridge,  21  Conn.  .STT  ;  54  Am.  Dec. 
:«5;  Perin  r.  McMickeii,  15  T.;^  An.  154;  Gilraan,  52  Me.  Ifti  ;  Fellows 
V.  Miner,  Uii  Mass.  .>11  ;  Hiffh,  2  Doua:.  (Mich.)  .515;  Moultrie  )■.  Hunt, 
23  N.  Y.  314  ;  Chamberlain,  43  N.  Y.  424;  Meese  v.  Keefe,  10  Ohio,  362; 
Bempde  i-.  Johnstone,  3  Ves.  1!)8. 

3  Harrison  t.  Nixon.  9  Peters,  483,  504,  505;  Story  Confl.  H  479  f, 
479  ff;  1  Jarm.  Wills,  2. 

4  See  State  v.  Mcnlvnn,  20  Cal.  2.X3  ;  Bailey,  5  Cush.  245  ;  1  Jarm. 
Wills,  2,  n. 

?  37.  Married  women's  contracts. — A  married  woman '.s 
capacity  to  contract  generally  depends  on  the  law  of 
the  place  were  the  contract  is  made  ;^  or,  according  to 
less  usual  view,  on  tlie  law  of  her  domicile.^  Her  capac- 
ity to  alien  inrimoval)les  depends  on  the  law  of  the  place 
where  they  lie,^  and  movables  on  the  law  of  her  domi- 
cile.* The  validity  of  a  contract  depends  on  the  lav.-  of 
the  place  where  it  is  made,  its  effect  on  the  law  of  the 
place  where  it  is  to  be  performed,  and  its  onforcemeut 
on  the  law  of  the  forum.^  The  validity  of  a  married 
woman's  contract,  except  as  to  realty,^  may  be  sustained 
by  tlie  law  of  the  place  where  it  was  made,  or  of  the 
place  fixed  on  for  its  performance,  or  of  her  domicile  at 
the  time  it  is  made,  unless  prohibited  b3'  the  law  of 


§  37  HOME   AND    FOREIGN   LAW.  42 

the  forum.'  Thus,  a  wife  domiciled  in  Massachusetts 
makes  a  contract  in  Maine  which  is  void  by  Mivssachu- 
sett's  law,  but  is  valid  by  Maine  law,  it  is  held  valid  in 
Massachusetts  *  and  in  Maino.^  So  a  wife  domiciled  in 
Mississippi  mako^  a  contract  in  Tennessee  which  is 
valid  by  Mississippi  law,  but  void  by  Tennessee  law, 
it  is  held  void  in  Tennessee.''^  So  a  contract  valid  in  Illi- 
nois where  it  was  made,  is  enforciblo  in  New  Jersey 
where  it  would  have  been  void ; "  but  a  contract  valid  at 
law  where  made  may  be  enforcible  only  in  equity  in 
another  State.''^  It  is  hard  to  define  how  far  tho  law  of 
the  forum  may  in  peculiar  circumstances  prevail.*'  If 
the  promisor  and  promisee  are  in  ditferent  States, 
and  the  promisor  mails  the  promise  to  the  promisee,  tho 
contract  5s  made  in  tho  State  of  tho  jiromisoo  and  by  tho 
law  thereof." 

1  SogtUler  ?•.  T'nion,  nt  U.  S.  4nB,  4n  ;  Tinvke  v.  Olover,  m  Ala.  382, 
3^:i;  NLxoii  I'.  Halle.v,78  111.  ()ll,(il5;  BuUiwin  v.  Gray,  KJ  Mart.  (La.> 
1!I2,  193;  iSaul  V.  Creditors,  17  Mart.  (I<a.)5(l:i.  5!,>7  ;  Andrews  r.  Credi- 
tor.s,  11  La.  -164,  47();  IJeW  i:  Pat^kard,  C<i>  Me.  105,  110  ;  31  Aia.  Kep.  2al  ; 
Bank  v.  Williams,  40  Miss.  618,  JiSu  ;  12  Am.  Rep.  31!) ;  Milliken  v. 
Pratt,  VUi  Mas.s.  374,  377,  3Si  ;  Z-i  Am.  Rep.  .'U  ,  Ross,  129  Mass,  it!,  246  ; 
Wrisjht  ('.  Keminston,  41  N.  J.  L.  48,51;  Pearl  v.  iraiisboroUKli.  !> 
Hiinipli.  42(),  4-i5;  Holmes  v.  Reynolds,  55  Vt,  3!»,  41  ;  I»e  Greiicliy  f. 
Wills,  Law  H.  4  C.  P.  D.  362, 3ft4  ;  Ulcey  Dom.  p.  1!I5  ;  aitte,  i  M. 

2  Dow  V.  no\ild,  .31  Cal.  (C9,  652  ;  Frler.son  v.  WilUam.s,  .'iTMiss.  4-51. 
462.  See  Kelly  v.  Davis,  28  La.  xVn.  773, 774  ;  Roberta  f.  Wilkinson,  3 
La.  An.  36:),  37-; ;  ante,  H  3:5,  34. 

3  IColIy  r.  Dvvis,  2S  La.  An.  T73,  774  ;  T.apice  v.  Gereanrteau,  -J 
Miss.  4-*0, 4ii ;  Frierson  v.  William.s,  57  Miss.  451,4fi2  ;  ante,  J  33. 

4  Kraemer,  52  Cal.  302, 305  ;  Dicey  Dom.  p.  195 ;  stii>ra,  n. 2 ;  ante. 1 31 

5  Scudder  i-.  Union,  ;)1  U.  S.  40G,  411 ;  ante,  I  33. 
0    iStipi-a,  n.  3  ;  ante,  J  3;t. 

7    Abbott  Trial  Evid.  p.  IM. 

S    IMilliken  v.  Pratt,  125  Mass.  874,  381 ;  2S  Am.  Rep.  241, 

0    Ecu  t'.  Packard.  r,d  Me.  Ifti,  HO  ;  31  Am.  Rep.  251. 

10    See  Pearl  i>.  Hansborough,  !>  Humph.  42fi,  4-35. 

H    Wright  V.  Remington,  41  N.  J.  L.  4S,  51. 

12  Halley  v.  Ball,  06  111.  250,  2.52  ;  ante,  ?  3.^ 

13  Whitridge  v.  Barrv,  42  Md.  140,  143,  1.50;  Bank  r.  Williams,  46 
Miss.  618,  62!) ;  ante,  U  24,  27,  31.  32. 

14  Bell  r.  Packard,  69  Me.  10.%  110  ;  31  Am.  Rep.  251;  Milliken  v. 
Pratt,  125  Mass.  374,  37G  ;  28  Am.  Rep.  241. 


43 


PART  II. 

THK    RRLATIOX   OF   HX7SBAND   AND   WIFK. 

Chap.  III.    The    Unity    of    Husband    and    Wife, 
??  38-56. 
IV.    Conjugal,    Rights     and    Obligations, 
??  57-81. 
V.    Conjugal  Agency,  §^  82-98. 
VI,    Postnuptial  Settlements  and   Deal- 
ings, g?  99-134. 


g   38  THE    FICTION'   OF   VNITY.  44 

CHAPTER  III. 

THE   UNITY   OF   HUSBAND    AND    WIFE. 

Art,  I.    The  Fiction  of  Unity,  ?^  38,  39. 

II.    Contracts  Between  Husband  and  Wife, 
g?  40-46. 

III.  Wrongs    Between    Husband   and  Wife, 

?;J  47-49. 

IV.  Wills  Between  Husband  and  Wife,  ??  50, 

51. 
V.    Suits  Between  Husband  and  Wife,  §§  52- 
56. 

Article  I.  —  The  Fiction  of  Unity. 

i  38.    Defined  and  explained. 

{  39.    Jfiscollnnoous  results  of. 

g  38.  The  fiction  of  unity  defined  and  explained.  —  A 
valid  marriage  1  makes  the  lui.sbaiid  and  wife  ojie  legal 
person.^  This  was  one  of  the  best  settled  fictions  of 
the  common  law.-^  The  woman  by  marriage  became 
civiUter  mortua;*  she  was  "covered  by,""  or  "  inerged 
in."  8  lier  husband  ;  she  was  called  afemme  covert,''  and 
her  condition  coverture.®  To  the  civil  law  this  fiction 
was  unknown,^  and  courts  of  equity  began  very  early 
to  recognize  the  separate  e.\istence  of  wives,  and  to  fol- 
low the  civil  law.'"  All  modern  legislation  has  tended 
away  from  the  common  law  and  towards  the  civil  law 
and  equity,  and  has  tended  towards  giving  wives  their 
separate  proi)eriy  and  greater  personal  capacity;''  but 
the  courts  have  nevei'theless  interpreted  the  statutes  in 
such  a  way  as  to  retain  as  far  as  possible  the  fiction  of 
the  identity  of  husband  and  wife,  and  the  intimacy  of 
the   marriage  relation.'-    And  so  this  fiction  of  legal 


45  THE    FICTION   OP   UNITY.  §  39 

unity  still  affects  more  or  less  all  the  reciprocal  capaci- 
ties of  husband  and  wife,^^  and  many  of  their  mutual 
rights  and  obligationsj^*  while  from  the  fact  that  it  is 
the  wife  whose  identity  is  lost  arise  all  the  disabilities 
of  married  women.i^ 

1  As  to  the  effect  of  void  or  voidable  marriage,  see  fully,  Stewart 
M.  &  D.  U  50,  51. 

2  1  Blackst.  Com.  4-12;  '2  Kent.  Com.  129;  Litt.  ?  168;  Coke  Litt. 
112  6;  Htorv  Kq.  ??  13(",  i:<70  ;  1  Bish.  M.  &  1).  j?  7.>4-76() ;  1  Bish.  M.  W. 
\  W  ;  1  Bright.  H.  A  W.  2 ;  Schoul.  H.  &  W.  \  6  ;  Wells  v.  Cavwood,  3 
Colo.  487,  491  ;  HooktT  v.  Baggs,  6.3  111.  160,  162;  Long  ■;•.  Kinnev,  49 
Ind.  2:!5,  2:J8  ;  O'Ferrall  v.  Simplot,  4  Iowa,  :{S1,.S89;  Winebrinner  %\ 
AVeisiger,  .S  Moii.  .'i2,  ''A\  Trader  v.  Lowe,  45  Md.  1,  14;  Burdeno  v. 
Amperse,  14  Mi''li.  '.)1,  '.I2  ;  I-riss«-ll  v.  llozier,  19  Mo.  448,449;  Aultman 
r.  Obermev.T,  (1  X(i>.  200,26:!;  Patterson,  45  N.  H.  164,  166;  White  v. 
Wager,  25  N.  Y.  :;25,  :.2.)  ;  Barron,  24  Vt.  375,. 398. 

3  White  V.  Wager,  25  X.  Y.  325,  329,  *30  ;  citations,  supra,  n.  2. 

4  O'Ferrall  v.  Simplot,  4  Iowa,  .".81,  389. 

5  Com.  Dig.  "  Baron  it  Femme  "  W.  ;  Litt.  \  28. 

6  Barron.  24  Vt.  375.  3:;8  ;  Long  v.  Kinney,  49  Ind.  2:1.5,  238. 

7  Boiivier  Law  Diet.  "Femme  Covert";  sxipra,  n.  6. 

8  1  Blackst.  Com.  442. 

9  1  Burge  Col.  <fe  For.  L.  202,  263  ;  Story  Eq.  I  1367 ;  ante,  ?  7. 

10  Morrison  v.  Thistle,  07  Mo.  536, 000 ;  Story  Eq.  f  J 1367,  el  seq. ;  ante' 
I  8  ;  post,  i  42. 

11  See  Wells  v.  Caywood,  3  Colo.  487,  490-492  ;  Albin  v.  Lord,  39 
N.  II.  196,  201  ;  ante,  ?  9. 

12  Walker  v.  Reamy,  30  Pa.  St.  410,  424 ;  ante,  U  15,  16. 

13  J'ost,  U  39-56. 

14  Post,  U  57-i;i4. 

15  Post,  I?  331,  et  seq. 

I  39.  Miscellaneous  results  of  fiction  of  unity.  —  On  the 
theory  that  husband  and  wife  are  one,  which  theory 
has  never  been  and  is  nowhere  logically  and  broadly 
applied,  but  which  in  every  place  where  the  common 
law  is  known,  influences  the  .status  of  married  persons, ^ 
husband  and  wife  cannot  contract  with  each  other, ^  or 
wrong  each  other  civilly,^  or  criminalh^,*  or  .sue  each 
other  ;5  their  interests  are  the  same,^  .so  that  they  could 
not  testify  for  or  against  each  other  ;  ^  a  sale  by  a  trustee 
to  his  wife  is  like  a  sale  to  himself.^  And  in  many 
cases  the  one  can  act  for  the  other .^    And  because  the 


§   39  CONTRACTS   BETWEEX.  46 

wife  is  merged  in  the  husband  she  takes  his  name,'" 
and  becomes  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  if  he  is  one  ;  '^ 
he  is  the  head  of  the  family,'"  fixes  the  matrimonial 
home,'*  and  has  control  of  the  children,"  and  to  some 
extent  of  the  wii'e.'^  When  real  estate  is  convej^ed  to 
liusband  and  wife,  they  hold  it  as  if  one  person  — they 
are  tenants  by  entireties.'^ 

1  Ante,  i  :58. 

2  White  V.  Wager,  25  X.  Y.  325,  32?,  330 ;  1  Wash.  II.  P.  27!» ;  post, 

3  Freethy,  42  Barb.  C41,  G45  ;  poxl,  i  49. 

4  Thomas,  51  111.  162, 1R5  ;  State  v.  Barry,  2  Green  Cr.  Rep.  285,  287, 
n. ;  post  §  4<X 

5  Philips  V.  Barnet,  1  Q.  B.  Div.  4W ;  post,  U  52-56. 

6  As  to  luisbaiKl  being  witness  to  will  in  favor  of  his  wife  :  See 
Hatfield  r.  Thorp,  5  Barn.  &  Aid.  5S!) ;  Holdfast  r.  Dowsing, 2  Strange, 
1253. 

7  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ??  66.  133,  M»,  349,  SH  ;  1  Blackst.  Com.  443 ; 
Schoul.  H.  &  W.  J  6 ;  post,  I  56. 

8  Dundas,  fA  Pa.  St.  325,  332,  3:«.  But  see  Belcher  v.  Blaclc,  6-J  Ga. 
93,  9.5. 

9  Buford  V.  Speed,  11  Bush,  $VS,  343;  Kerchner  v.  Kempton,  41 
Md.  5(W,  i*i^^■,  ptst,  a  82-98. 

10  Stewart  M.  &  I).  I  46S  ;  Schoul.  II.  &  \V.  J  63  ;  p-.st,  {  61. 

11  Kelly  1-.  0\v('n,7  Wall.  4'J(!  ;  I.uhos  v.  Eimer,  80  N.  V.  171,  177; 
Burton,  1  ICcves,  :tjl;  Kan?  r.  McCarthy,  63  X.  C.  29:» ;  Leonardo. 
Grant,  11  Rep."  327  ;  Re.\  v.  Manning,  1  Car.  &  K.  866. 

12  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ?{  66,  133,  34S,  349,  154  •  Evans,  1  Hagg.  Const. 
35,  115  ;  post,  i  GO. 

13  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ??  221,  2.53 ;  Hanberry,23  Ala.719,724  ;  ante,  i  23; 
post,  i  60. 

14  Stewart  M.  &  D.  J?  192,  400-402,  437,  471. 

15  Lister,  8  Mod.  22, 23  ;  1  Strange,  477  ;  post,  \  62. 

16  Marbourg  v.  Cole.  49  Md.  402,  411  ;  33  Am.  Rep.  266  •  post,  {{  304- 
306. 

Article    II.  —  Coxtr.\cts  Between    Husbaxd    axd 
Wife. 

2  40.  Causes  affecting  validity  of. 

I  41.  At  common  law. 

I  42.  In  equity. 

I  43.  Under  statutes. 

I  44.  Antenuptial. 

I  45.  Husband  and  wife  as  debtor  and  creditor. 

■  '     .  I  46.  Recent  decisions.- 


47  COXTUACTS   BKTVVEEX.  ^   40^41 

g  40.  Causes  affectin  j  validity  of  contracts  between  hus- 
band and  wifo.  —  Contract  between  husband  and  wife 
may  bo  attacked  on  one  or  more  of  the  following 
grounds  :  — 

1.  Because  husband  and  wife  are  together  one  per- 
son,' while  two  pariies  are  necessary  to  every  contract.'^ 

2.  Because  a  married  woman  cannot  contract  with 
any  one.' 

3.  Because  of  fraud'  or  want  of  consideration ^  as 
between  the  parties. 

4.  Because  of  fraud  on  creditors.'' 

5.  Because  of  a  prohibitor\'  public  policy'  or  statute.^ 
In  this  article  only  the  cnpacity  of  husband  and  wife  to 
contract  together  is  discussed  ;  the  otlior  grounds  of  in- 
validity arc  treated  under  "antenuptial  scttlcinents,"^ 
"postnuptial  settlements,'""  and  "deeds  of  separa- 
tion,"" 

1  Ante,  \  38. 

2  Scarborough  v.  Watklns, !)  Moii.  P..  .>I0.  5-15  ;  50  Am.  Dec.  528  ; 
White  V.  Wager,  25  X.  Y.  S25,  320  ;  poHl.  H  4H5. 

3  Oehb  r.  nose,  40  Md.  3^7.  303  ;  Burton  v.  Marshall,  4  Gill,  48;, 493  ; 
post,  ii  :i5(>-3fiS. 

4  Hon,  TO  Intl.  IM,  130 ;  Helms  v.  Franciscus,  2  Bland,  ^J4,  564  ;  20 
Am.  Dec.  402  ;  Pierce,  71  N.  Y.  I&l ;  27  Xm.  Hep.  760 ;  post,  'i  110. 

5  Pntterson,45  N.  H.  104,  166;  Plummer  v.  Jarman,  44  Md.  632, 
630 ;  post,  i  104. 

6  Henkle  v.  Wilson,  53  Md.  2S7, 112  ;  post,  U  113-118. 

7  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ?  184. 

8  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ?  18.5. 

n    Stewart  M.  <fc  D.  ??  .32-13,  382,  450,  461-466. 

10  I'ost,  ch.  6,  |§  00,  et  seq. 

11  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ??  181-102. 

>^  41.  Contracts  between  husband  and  wife  at  common 
law.  —  By  the  common  law  contracts  between  husband 
and  wife  are  absolutely  void  for  want  of  parties  and  the 
wife's  power  to  consent.'  A  mere  personal  executory 
contract  between  them  is  unqualifiedly  void,-  and  a 
transfer  from  one  to  the  other   can  be   eflected   only 


g  41  C0NTRACT3  BETWEEN.  48 

through  a  third  party  :^  the  would-be  grantor  conveys 
to  a  third  party,  and  the  third  party  conveys  to  the 
would-be  grantee.*  This  is  perfectly  legitimate,*  though 
the  rights  of  creditors  cannot  be  thus  defeated;*^  and 
liens  against  the  third  party  do  not  attach  to  the  prop- 
erty as  it  passes  through  his  hands.'  Thus  a  note  from 
wife  to  husband  is  void  ;»  as  is  a  note  from  husband  to 
wifc,8  though  he  has  promised  a  third  party  to  pay  it.'" 
So  a  direct  conveyance  by  husband  to  \\ife,"or  by  wife 
to  luisband,^^  is  void.  But  a  wife  may  execute  a  power 
in  favor  of  her  husband,"  and  deal  with  him  in  a  repre- 
sentative capacity."  Tliese  contracts  may  be  good  in 
equity  though  void  at  law.^* 

1  Beard,  3  Atk.  72  ;  ■Wallinsfsford  v.  AUon,  10  Petprs.  5SS  rm,  r,H  ; 
Stono  1'.  (Jsizzam,  46  Ala.  2fi9,  27<  ;  FrU-rsoii,  31  Ala,  540,  5.5.5  ;  Pillow  ?•. 
"Wade,  31  Ark  fi78  ;  Dibble  v.  Hulloti,  1  Day,  221  ;  Hoker  r.  Ba«Ks,  ii:t 
111.  161,  162  ;  ScarborouE:h  v.  Watkiti-s,  9Mon.  B.  545,  .545  ;  50  Am.  Dm-. 
528  ;  Martin,  1  Me.  .VM,  3:«  ;  .Tohiisoii  v.  StillinKS,  -io  Me.  427.  428  ;  Allen 
V.  Hooper,  50  Me.  :^l,  374  ;  Preston  v.  Frver,  3S  Md.  2-.'l.  225  ;  Roby  r. 
Phelon,  118  Mass.  541,  .5^12  ;  Jenne  t'.  Marble,  37  Mich.  31!),  .323  ;  Looniis 
1).  Brusli,  :{6  Mieh.  40,  40 ;  Frissell  v.  Rozier,  19  Mo.  448.  449  ;  Aultman 
V.  Obermever,  6  Neb.  2fiO,  264  ;  Patterson,  45  N.  H.  164,  16fi;  Wliite  v. 
Wager,  25  N.  Y.  328,  :i:?2,  .3.^3  ;  .32  Barb.  2.50  ;  Fowler  i-.  Trebein,  16  Ohio 
St.  493, 497  ;  Johnston.  31  Pa.  St.  4.50,  4.53  ;  Barron,  24  Vt.  37.5, 398  ;  Sweat 
V.  Hall,  8  Vt.  187, 189  ;  Putnam  v.  Blcknell,  18  Wis.  X?3,  3^5. 

2  Jenne  v.  Marble.  .37  :\rich.  319,  323  ;  supra,  n.  1. 

3  Gebb  v.  Rose,  40  Md.  a'<7,  392 ;  cases  infra,  n.  .5, 

4  Shepperson,  2  Gratt.  501,  502  ;  cases  infra,  n.  5. 

5  Hnftalin  r.  Misner,  70  111.  55,  60  ;  Gebb  v.  Rose,  40  Md.  387,  392  ; 
Motte  V.  .\lKer,  15  Gray,  •{22.323;  JeweU  r.  Porter,  31  N.  H.  34,3s; 
Merriam  r.  Harsen,  4  Edw.  Ch.  70,  82  :  White  v.  Wager,  25  N.  Y.  .328, 
332,  .3:53  ;  Dukes  r.  Spanffler, :«  Ohio  .'*t.  119, 125;  Garvin  v.  Ingram,  10 
Rich.  Eq.  130,  136  ;  Shepperson,  2  Gratt.  501,  502. 

G  Chicago  v.  M;igraw,  75  III.  566,  ,568  ;  post,  ??  113-U8. 

7  O'Donncll  t'.  Korr,  50  IIow.  Pr.  334,  335. 

8  Roby  V.  Phelon,  118  Mass.  .'Ml,  &12. 

9  Hoker  r.  B.iggs,  63  111.  161, 162  ;  Patterson,  45  N.  H.  164, 168. 

10  Sweat  V.  Hall,  8  Vt.  1S7,  189. 

11  Beard,  3  Atk.  72  ;  Martin,  1  Me.  394,  398. 

12  Scarborough  v.  Watkins,  9  Men.  B.  540,  545  ;  50  Am.  Dec.  528  ; 
Gebb  V.  Rose,  40  Md.  387,  3!»2. 

13  Schl^v  I'.  MeCenev,  36  Md.  266,  273  ;  Bradish  t'.  Gibbs,  3  Johns. 
Ch.  523, 536  ;  Hoover  v.  Society,  4  Whart.  445,  453  ;  post,  5  20.5. 

14  See  Richards,  2  Barn.  &  Adol.  447  ;  post, 

15  Sims  ;.  Ricketls,  S5  Ind.  ISl,  192,  133  ;  0  Am.  Rep.  311  ;  post,i4Z 


49  CONTRACTS   BETWEEX.  §   42 

§  42.  Contracts  between  husband  and  wife  in  equity.  — 
Courts  of  equity  have  always  recognized  both  the  dual- 
ity of  husband  and  ■\vife,^  and  the  capacity  of  married 
■women  to  liold,-  convey,^  and  charge  by  contract,* 
property  Avhich  is  called  their  sole  and  separate  estate.^ 
Therefore  these  courts  give  effect  to  a  husband's  prom- 
ises ^  and  transfers'  to  his  A\ife,  and  also  enforce  a 
wife's  agreements  A^-ith  her  husband  respecting  her 
property ,8  though  they  do  not  recognize  any  personal 
obligation  she  may  attempt  to  assume.^  But  to  be  en- 
forcible  in  equity  a  contract  must  be  equitable:^"  it 
must  be  fairly  made,'*  and  there  must  be  a  proper  con- 
sideration.'^ Tlie  intervention  of  a  trustee  is  not  neces- 
.sary,'^  but  any  contract  directly  between  husband  and 
^Yi{e  is  valid  in  equity,  if  the  intei'vention  of  a  third 
party  would  have  made  it  valid  at  law."  In  this  way 
tlie  relation  not  only  of  grantor  and  grantee,''  but  also 
of  debtor  and  creditor,'^  may  exist  between  husband 
and  wife.'''  Thus,  courts  of  equity  give  effect  to  deed.i 
of  separation ; '8  to  gifts  from  husband  to  wife,'^  and 
from  Avife  to  husband  ;2''  to  a  deed  from  husband  to 
wife,  at  least  as  a  declaration  of  trust ;  ''^  to  a  deed  c ." 
her  sole  and  separate  estate  from  a  wife  to  her  hus- 
l)and  ;  *^  to  a  husband's  agreement  on  valuable  consid- 
eration to  convey  property  to  his  wifc;^  to  a  wife'3 
agreement  fairh-  made  on  valuable  consideration  to 
make  her  husband  an  allowance  out  of  her  separate 
estate;'-'  so,  a  husband's  note  to  his  wife  in  payment 
for  lier  separate  property  will  be  enforced;^  or  h:.s 
promise  to  repay  her  money  wliich  with  such  under- 
standing she  has  allowed  him  to  use;-*  when  he  uses 
her  separate  estate  without  her  knowledge  or  against 
her  wishes,  a  promise  to  repay  will  be  implied  ;  -''  when 
he  uses  it  witli  her  consent  and  acquiescence,  a  gift  of 
it  by  her  to  him  Av'll  be  presumed  r-^  Avheu  he  invests 

IT.  &  W.-5. 


g  42  CONTRACTS   BETAVEEX.  50 

it  in  property  he  will  be  decreed  to  hold  such  property 
as  her  trustee  ;  '^  so  he  may  agree  to  buy  property  for 
her  A\-ith  his  funds,  she  to  reimburse  him,  and  the 
liroperty  so  bought  is  hers;^*  so  a  Avife's  note  to  her 
husband  which  would  have  been  valid  at  law  if  drawn 
in  favor  of  a  third  party,  is  valid  in  equity  ;'*  as  arc 
her  stipulations  in  agreements  which  her  husband  has 
executed  or  l)y  wliieh  he  is  bound.^- 

1  Ajite,  i'i  s>  38. 

2  story  Eq.  Juris.  ?  1S77:  1  FonbL  Eq.  B.  1  CU.  2,  ?  6,  n.  n  ;po«r, 
?202. 

3  Chew  V.  BeaU,  13  Md.  348,  3CjO  ;  post,  ?  20.S, 

4  Price  V.  Bingham,  7  Har.  &  J.  29(5,  .US ;  ;>-«/,  {?  206, 207. 

5  Discussed  fully  post,  JJ  197-216,  Wifk's  EyriTABLK  .Sepahatk 
Propkety. 

6  ilcCampbeU,  2  Lea,  6ei,  664  ;  infra,  n.  16. 

7  ilurrav  v.  GIa<»se,  23  T,aw  J.  Ch.  126,  127;  Jloore  v.  Page,  111 
I'.  .S.  117;  Sinisr.  Ricketts,  35  Iiid.  ISl,  192,  IM;  9  Am.  Rep.  679  ;  infru. 
notes  1?,  17,  21. 

8  Wormley,  98  111.  544,  55.J ;  infra,  notes  17,  22,  24,  32. 

9  Because  married  women  can  contract  in  equity  only  rpspcct'ncf 
their  property :  See  Jonne  r.  M.irhle,  .37  Mich.  3!'j,  ;t23';  post,  {  2n7. 
But  see  Morrison  v.  Thistle.  G7  Mo.  5^6,  600.  601. 

10  Loomis  ?■.  Brush,  36  Mich.  40, 4'i.    Consult  ;)'M^  J  J  122.  121. 

11  Hon,  70  Ind.  Vio,  139;  Helms  v.  Franciscns,  2  Bland,  Mi,  561 ;  20 
Am.  Dec.  A02  ;  post,  i  110. 

12  Walliiigsford  v.  Allen.  10  Peters,  .583,  5D3;  Stone  r.  fJazzani,  ■;''. 
Ala.  269,  273;  Sims  v.  Ricketts,  :15  Ind.  131.  la:!;  9  Am.  Uop.  67 1; 
Stockett  t'.  Halliday,  9  >td.  4.80, 498 ;  White  r.  \VaKor,25  X.  Y.  .il*.  .1:4  ; 
AVinans  v.  Peebles,  32  N.  Y.  423,  42G;  Fowler  r.  Trcbehi,  ir.  O.'jio  .'^t. 
493,  497  ;  post,  {  IW. 

13  Jones  r.  Clifton,  101  XJ.  S.  225, 223;  Sims  v.  Ricketts,  35  Ind.  181, 
193  ;  9  Am.  Rep.  070. 

14  Sims  )'.  Ricketts.  35  Ind.  ISl,  103;  9  Am.  Rep.  679;  Pennlson,  iC, 
Mo.  77,  81  ;  Barron,  24  Vt.  375,  3:!S,  399. 

15  Murray  v.  Gla.sse,  23 1,aw  J.  Ch.  125,  127 ;  Sperling  r.  Rochfort,  8 
Vos.  164, 175  ;  infra,  notes  17,  22. 

16  Stone  V.  Glazzam,  46  Ala.  260,  273  ;  Sims  v.  Ricketts,  3.".  Ind.  Hi, 
nO-194;  9Am.  R  p.  67J;  Edolon,  UMd.  415,420;  Mavfi  Id  ,..  Kilijour, 
31  Md.  240,  2U ;  Myers  f.  King,  42  Md.  65,  70  ;  Drurv  f'.  Bri~icoe,  42  Md. 
1>4,  162;  Olenh-.l  »•.  Devlin,  48  Md.  439.  446;  Morrison  t'.  Thistle,  67 
Mo.  5i6, 601  ;  Au:t:niii  v.  Obormever,  6  Xeb.  263,  2:VI ;  Barron,  24  Vt. 
375,  SJ3  ;  Putnam  v.  Bicknell,  18  A\'is.  3.33.  SSo. 

17  Many  cases  are  collected  in  Ewell's  Le.ad.  Cas.  on  coverture,  but 
th?  aurhorilics  on  t'lis  point  are  too  numerous  for  enumeration : 
Sims  V.  Ricketts,  -3.5  Ind.  m,  l"n-n4,  is  the  fullest  case. 

13    See  fully  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ?J  181-192. 


I 


51  coNTr.Af  Ts  Dr.Twr.KX.  I  43 

19  Kohner  v.  Aslioiiauor.  17  Cal.  57S,  5S2  ;  X'nclcrhill  v.  Morgan,  -A 
Conn.  lUi,  107  ;  Warlick  v.  White,  86  >".  C.  K-i ;  ■ll  Am.  Rep.  4.>J. 

20  Edelen,  11  y\'\.  ■llo,  420  ;  Kuhn  »■.  Stunsfield,  2S  Md.  210,  21.5  ;  Hi::. 
:»  Md.  l.s;{,  ls.5 ;  Lyle,  11  Phila.  64  ;  infra,  n.  2S. 

21  Murray  v.  OIa.sse,  2.3  Law  J.  f  h.  12fi,  127  ;  Bale  v.  Lincoln,  fi2  111. 
22.26;  Sims  i\  Hickftts,  ."»j  Jiid.  I'Sl,  l!i2  ;  i)  .\m.  Rep.  67!» ;  Jones.  IS 
Md. -lO^.  4(W  ;  Slifparrl,  7.Iohns.  fh.  .iT,  61;  11  Am.  Dec.  a«6  ;  Bradi-sli 
7-.  Gibbs,  3  Johns.  Ch.  523,  .>I0.  See  .Sexton  v.  ^\■heaton,  8  Wheat.  22); 
1  Am.  Lead.  Cas.  1 ;  p-M,  PosTxrrTiAL  Settlkmexts,  ??  99-134. 

22  Scarborough  v.  Watkins,  9  Mon.  B.  540,  545  ;  50  Am.  Dec.  528  ; 
;>'M■^  \l  205,  2;«i. 

21  .Stookett  V.  TIallidav,  0  Md.  480,  498  ;  Boone  v.  Stonestreet,  fi  M-l. 
4H,  4TO;  Livirmston,  2  Johns.  Ch.  .5:57;  Winans  v.  Peebles,  o2  >".  V. 
423,  426  ;  Putnam  v.  Bicknell,  18  Wis.  XB,  3:B. 

24  Moore  v.  Freeman,  Bunb.  205  ;  Story  Eq.  Juris.  {  1372. 
2.5    McCampbell,  2  Lea,  661,  664. 

26  Hon,  70  Ind.  \Xi,  i:m  ;  Drurv  v.  Briscoe,  42  Md.  151,  ir2  ;  Ili'l,  ."8 
MI.  Ti !,  l.<,  ;  Kd-leii,  II  Md.  415,  420  ;  Mover,  77  P:i.  St.  4>2. 

27  Oover  r.  Owings,  16  Md.  01,  m  \  Edelen,  11  Md.  415,  420.    Seil 

qiirrre. 

25  Courtwright,  53  Iowa,  .57,  60;  Hamilton  v.  Llghtner,  53  Iowa, 
470,  472  ;  .Sabel  r.  Slinghiff,  52  Md.  V-fl.  V'A  :  Jacobs  r.  Hesler,  113  Mass. 
157;  Clark  v.  Rosekrans,  31  N.  J.  Eq.  655;  Reeder  v.  Elinn,6Rich. 
216  ;  Lishey,  2  Tenn.  Ch.  .5. 

29  Harris  v.  Brown,  30  Ala.  401,  402  ;  Rich  v.  Tubbs,  41  Cal.  .*M,  3.5 ; 
Ingersoll  >•.  Truebolv,  40  Cal.  60:t,  611  ;  Thomas  v.  Standiford,  4!)  5Id. 
isi,  ]s|;  Kill  r,  45  M'l.  270,  274;  Tresh  r.  Wirtz,  .34  JS".  J.  Eq.  124,  129. 
Consult  po»^  ii>(  88,  i:C 

.30  Mvers  r.  King,  42  Md.  6.5,  70.  .See  McCowan  v.  Donaldson,  128 
Ma.«s.  169  ;  tjost,  U  84,  88. 

31    Morrison  v.  Thistle,  67  Mo.  5S6,  COl. 

.32  See  Townshend  r.  Windham,2  Vcs.  7;  More  r.  Freeman,  Bunb. 
205;  Wormivy,  !«II1.  .>H,  oV! ;  Robertson,  25  Iowa,  3.50,  .^51,  3.>! ;  Me- 
Cnhbln  r.  Patterson,  16  Jfd.  17.>,  I'"v5  ;  I.ivi"Grstori,  2  Johns.  Ch.  ail, 
.5:i9;  Carver  )•.  Miller,  16  Ohio  St.  527,  5.31 ;  Ilutton  r.  Duev,  3  Pa.  ,St. 
100, 104. 

?  43.  Contracts  botwoon  hucband  and  wiTo  under  5tat;u.to3. 
—  Til  word  "contract"  in  this  section  includes  (!^ 
cxoeutorv  contracts  or  contract.s  proper ;  (2)  executed 
contracts  or  transfers ;  ( ')  and  transfers  -without  con- 
sideration, or  gift.s.  Under  tlie  ^ln^\Titten  common  Inw 
contracts  between  husband  and  A\ifo  are  absolutcl y 
void  at  law,  because  a  Avifo  lias  no  capacity  to  contract 
a^  all,  and  because  husband  and  wife  being  one,  any 
contract  between  them  is  void  for  Avant  of  parties.^  Er.t 
ill  equity  where  the  duality  of  hu-sband  and  wnie  ha.j 
always  been  recognized  and  v.here  a  av;!g  has  ah\-ays 


2   43  CONTKACTS   BETWEEN.  52 

had  a  limited  capacity  to  contract  as  to  her  separate  prop- 
erty, contracts  between  husband  and  vnte  if  cqttitah'e 
are  valid.^  The  statute,  the  effect  of  which  is  in  question, 
may  refer  (I)  expressly  to  contracts  between  husband 
and  wife,  or  (2)  simply  to  contracts  of  married  Avomcn. 

1.  Some  statutes  expressly  proliibit  contracts'  or 
some  contracts*  between  husband  and  wfe ;  others 
expressly  authorize  them.'  A  statute  prohibiting  con- 
tracts between  liusband  and  wife  destroj's  their  prior 
capacity  only  so  far  as  such  capacity  is  expresslj'  re- 
ferred to  or  as  is  necessary  to  secure  the  efficiencj'  of 
the  statute.*  A  statute  authorizing  contracts  between 
husband  and  wife  generally  includes  all  contracts  each 
could  make  with  a  third  party,  but  if  it  specifies  eei-- 
tain  contracts  tlie  capacity  it  gives  is  confined  to  tliese.^ 
If  annexed  to  a  general  statute  empowering  a  nuirried 
woman  to  contract  there  is  a  clause  excepting  certain 
specified  contracts  with  her  husband,  such  statute 
gives  her  power  to  make  all  contracts  with  her  hus- 
band, but  those  excepted,  wiiicli  it  enables  her  to  make 
with  tliird  parties.^  Thus,  under  the  Alabama  statute, 
which  provides  tliat  a  married  woman  may  contract 
but  may  not  make  a  contract  of  sale  witli  her  liusband, 
she  may  make  any  otiier  contract  with  him  and  receive 
gifts  from  him;^  and  under  tlie  Maryland  statute, 
which  provides  that  a  married  Avoman  may  acquire 
property  except  from  her  husband  in  prejudice  of  liis 
creditors'  rights,  she  may  acfjuire  property  directly 
from  her  husband  when  his  creditors  are  not  alfected ;  'o 
but  a  statute  like  tliat  of  lowa'i  authorizing  transfers 
between  husband  and  wife  does  not  authorize  personal 
contracts.'-  There  are  statutes  on  tliis  subject  like  tliaL 
of  Kansas,!'  the  effect  of  which  must  be  purely  specu- 
liitive. 

2.  r^Iarried  women   acts  not   referrinc   to  contracts 


53  CONTRACTS   BETWEEN.  g   43 

between  husband  and  Avife,  bnt  giving  a  married 
woman  the  capacity  to  contract  Avith  the  assent  or 
joinder  of  her  husband,"  do  not  enable  her  to  contract 
Avith  her  husband,'^  except  perhaps  Avhen  assent  alone 
is  required  to  transfer  property  to  him  in  equity .'^ 
Thus,  Avherc  a  married  Avoman  can  conA^ey  only  by 
joint  deed  Avith  her  husliand  such  a  joint  deed  to  her 
Inisband  is  A'oid  ;"  and  Avhero  she  can  jointly  Avith  her 
husband  make  Avritten  contracts'*  a  promissory  note 
by  Imsband  and  Avife  to  husband  hi  Aoid,'*  but  Avhere  a 
married  Avoman  may  assign  her  projjerty  A\ith  the 
fi.snent  of  her  husband,  such  an  assignment  may  be 
Aiilid  in  equity.^"  "Whetlier  a  general  statute  enabling 
a  married  woman  to  contract  as  if  unmarried ,'^  enables 
her  to  contract  Avith  her  husband  is  disputed.^  On  the 
one  hand  it  is  said  that  the  incapacitj^  of  husband  and 
Avife  to  contract  together  is  an  incapacity  of  the  hus- 
band as  Avell  as  of  the  Avife  and  is  not  noAv  remoA-ed 
Avlien  the  incapacitj'  of  the  Avife  alone  is  destroyed;^ 
tliat  contracts  betAveen  husband  and  Avife  are  A'oid  not 
only  because  one  of  the  parties  is  under  disability,  but 
because  both  parties  are  one,  ^*  and  therefore  are  not 
made  Aalid  by  a  statute  Avhicli  simply  remoA'ed  that 
disability  ;'^  tliat  the  rule  is  aa-oU  settled  that  married 
AAomcn  acts  do  not  afltect  the  unity  of  husband  and 
Avife,-''  and  by  this  rule  a  married  woman's  enabling  act 
changes  the  status  of  a  Avife  only  tOAvard  third  persons 
unless  it  refers  expressly  to  lier  husband.''^  On  the 
otlicr  hand  it  is  assumed  that  legislatures  intended  to 
include  contracts  Avith  husbands.^s  The  former  is  the 
correct,  but  the  latter  is  the  best  established  A-iew.  It 
is  consistent  AA-ith  both  A'ieAvs  that  courts  of  equity, 
Avliich  iiaA'c  ncA-er  recognized  the  disability  from  the 
unitA'  of  husband  and  Avife,^  should  put  contracts  be- 
tAveen  husband  and  Avife  relating  to  her  statutory  sepa- 


^   43  CO>'TEACTS   BETWEEN'.  54 

la'e  estate  on  the  same  footing  as  contracts  relating  to 
her  equitable  sejiarate  estate,^"  especially  as  statutes 
creating  sej^arate  estates  are  often  simply  declaratory 
of  the  unwritten  law  administered  by  courts  of 
equity.^i 

1  Sfiirborough  v.  Watkins,  f)  Mon.  B.  .5J0,  543  ;  50  Am.  Deo.  52S  ; 
Joliiisoii  V.  StiUliiKS,  ;«i  Ml'.  427,  428  ;  White  v.  Wager,  25  N.  Y.  :CS,  sa, 
a.i.5 ;  32  Barb.  250  ;  ante,  'i  41. 

2  WiilIinETsforrt  v  Allen,  10  Peters,  58-3,  593,  504  ;  Dale  »•.  I.incoln.  fi2 
111.  22,  2(i;  Stockett  v.  Halliduv,  1)  Mtl.  480,  411.S  :  I.ooniis  r.  Brush,  :«! 
Misli.  40,  46  ;  Winaus  i>.  I'eebles.  :«  X.  Y.  42j.  42fi  :  untf,  J  42. 

3  Ala.  Code,  1876,  I  2709  ;  Mass.  P.  S.  1882,  p.  819,  {  2  ;  Ba.ssett  112 
Mass  9.),  100 

4  La  Civ.  Code,  1875,  ??  2.'!26,  2:527;  Minn.  St.  1878,  p.  769,  ?  4. 

5  Cal  Civ.  Code,  18S1,  ??  158, 159  ;  Pa.  Pur.  Disr.  \^T1,  p.  1007,  ?  21. 

6  Soo  Ingoldsbv  v  Juan,  12  Cal.  564,  575,  576  ;  Maduv  v.  Love,  25 
Cal.  367,  381,  ;*<2  ;  ante,  \  16 

7  Jenne  v^  Marble,  37  Mioh.  .119.  323.  See  Sturmfelt7.  r.  Frlckey,  43 
Md.  569,  571 ;  Robertson  v.  Bruner,  24  Mis.s.  242,  •!44  ;  ante,  \  Hi. 

8  Goree  J'.  AValthall,44  Ala.  161.  164,  165;  Trader  ?■.  Lowe,  4.">  Md 
1,  14;  (ircgory  v.  Dodds,  60  Miss.  54J,  .>52 ;  Wliitney  v.  Wheeler,  116 
Mass.  70  ;  antt,  H  14, 16. 

9  Goree  r.  Walthall,  44  Ala.  161,  lUl,  16.5;  Goodlett  r.  ilaiisel,  06 
Ala.  I'll  ;  Harden  v.  Darwin.  (>f>  -Via.  .55. 

10  Trader  v.  Lowe.  45  Md.  1,11. 

11  lo'va  R.  C.  ISSO,  i  2200;  l)ut  ?  I0;!5  may  authorize  them:  Rob- 
ertson, Iowa,  350,  3.55. 

12  Jenne  v.  Marble,  37  Mich.  319,  321  ;  ante,  J  15. 

13  Kan.  C.  L.  ISSl,  p.  53).  ?  3136. 

14  Such  as  Md.  R.  C.  1878,  pp.  482,  483.  ?§  20,  30. 

15  Rreit  r.  Yeatoii,  101  III.  242,  262  ;  Ho!?an,  89  III.  427,  4.^'^,  4.'M  : 
Brooks  ('.  Keaens,  n6  111.  547,  5-11 ;  Line  v.  Blizzard,  70  Ind.  2-5 ;  Kinne- 
nian  v.  Pvle,  44  Iiul.  27.5  :  .S  •  irhi>nniijh  r.  Watkins,  9  Mon.  B.  540,  .545; 
50  .\m.  IJec.  528  ;  Gebb  r.  R(jse,  40  iMd.  3^7,  392  ;  ante,  |  14. 

16  See  Whitridge  v.  Barry.  42  Md.  140,  Ibl,  152. 

17  Gebb  I'.  Rose,  40  Md.  387.  392. 

18  Such  as  Md.  R.  C.  1878,  p.  482,  ?  20. 

19  Inference  from  cases,  «i(p»-a,  n.  14. 

20  Whitridge  v.  Barry,  42  JId.  140,  151, 152. 

21  Such  as  III.  R.  S.  1880,  p.  5;)2,  i  6 ;  Mich.  R.  S.  1882,  ?  R29.5. 

22  That  she  can,  see  Bank  ?i.  Banks,  101  L'.  S.  2iO,  241,  21.5;  Kiiikead, 
3  Bis.s.  40.5,  410  ;  Wells  r.  Gay  wood,  3  (  olo.  487,  4!M  ;  Hamilton,  8  i  III. 
»49,  ;i51  ;  Robertson,  25  Iowa,  350,  3.5.5;  Allen  r.  Hooper,  .50  M  ■.  371,  :<74, 
375  ;  Jenne  v.  Marble,  37  Mich.  319,  321,  :{23  ;  Ransom,  3ii  Mich.  :i2s,  :<:«); 
Rankin  v.  West.  25  Mirh.  l^iS,  200  ;  Biirdeno  >:  Amp(  rse,  14  Mich,  91, 
97;  Albin  •('.  l.onl.  :i  i  .\.  H.  IWi,  203,  2(M  ;  Zimmerman  v.  iOrli.ird,  .5S 
How.  Pr.  11, 13  ;  Woodward  v.  Sweet,  51  N.  Y.  81.  That  she  i-aimot. 
see  Hoker  i'.  Boggs,  63  III.  ICl,  163  ;  Whitney  v.  Classon,  S.  J.  C.  Mass. 


1 


Zo  CONTRACTS   BETWEKN.  g   44 

Nov.  8, 18(M  ;  Knowles  v.  Hull,  m  Mass.  562,  564,  56-i ;  Lord  v.  Parker, 
3  Allpii,  1-27.  lit;  Aultmiin  v.  Obcrmever,  8  Neb.  2fiO,  264;  Savage  v 
O'Xeill,  42  Barb.  374,  37^ ;  Whita  v.  Wager,  25  N.  Y.  328,  330-3.34  ;  ante, 
i  14. 

2"',  ".Vhlte  V.  Wager,  25  N.  Y.  328,  333 ;  denied,  Burdeno  v.  Amperse, 
14  .^lifh.  87,  91. 

24    8iipra,  n.  1  ;  ante,  ??  38,  41. 

2.-.    White  V.  WiigCT,  .V>  N.  Y.  328,  333. 

20    See  full  dl.scussion  of  this  rule:  Ante,  ?  14. 

27  See  cases  cited,  gtipra,  n.  22. 

28  Wells  r.  Gay  wood,  3  Colo.  487,  4!»4  ;  cases  supra,  n.  22, 
23    Supra,  n.  2  ;  arite,  i  42. 

80  See  Whltridfft"  v.  Hurry,  42  Md.  140,  152;  Hall  v.  Eccleston,  37 
>fd.  510,  520;  infra,  n.  31. 

31  Jenne  v.  Marble,  :i7  Mich.  319,  323;  Albin  v.  Lord,  3!)  X.  H.  196, 
203,  2W  ;  anU,  i  16. 

^  44.  Antenuptial  contracts  between  husband  and  wife.  — 
Tninsiers  of  pnjporly  are  not  allectcul  l)y  the  .subsequent 
marriage  of  the  grantor  and  grantee.'  But  if  in  the  case 
of  executory  contracits,  the  promisor  or  obligor  marries 
the  promisee  or  obligee,  the  contracting  parlies  become 
ono,2  and  the  obligation  of  the  contract  is  destroyed.'' 
Such  is  the  rule  at  common  law*  necessarilj',  as  the  hus- 
band is  bound  to  .settle  his  wife's  antenuptial  obliga- 
tions,5  is  entitled  to  collect  her  debts,*!  ^^^^  cannot  sue  or 
be  sued  by  her.'  And  tlie  same  rule  applies  when  one 
of  several  obligors  marries  one  of  several  obligees.^ 
But,  even  at  law,  if  one  of  the  parties  contracted  in  a 
representative  capacity,^  or  if  the  contract  was  made  to 
take  eftoct  after  marriage, •"  it  was  not  extinguished  ;  and 
courts  of  equity  liave  always  sustained  contracts  fairly 
made  in  consideration  of  marriage,"  contracts  which 
fall  within  the  definition  of  marriage  settlements.'^  if 
a  husband  agrees  bj'  marriage  settlement,'^  or  other- 
wise,** that  his  wife  shall  have  her  property  to  her 
separate  use,'^  or  if  a  statute  secures  to  her  her  "prop- 
erty "  '6  owned  at  the  time  of  her  m:irriage,"  an  obliga- 
tion of  her  husband  held  by  her  is  not  extinguished, 
for  choses  in  action  ex  contractu  are  '■'■jyroperty,''^  '^    But 


2   44  CONTRACTS   BETWEEN.  56 

such  an  agreement  or  statute  lias  no  eflFect  on  a  wife's 
obligation  to  her  husband."  An  assignment  of  the 
obligation  before  marriage  prevents  its  extinguish- 
ment,^ but  assignment  af.'er  marriage  has  no  saving 
etiijct.-'  The  enforcing  of  contracts  which  are  not  extin- 
guished depends  on  the  law  of  procedure  ;-"*  sometimes 
all  remedy  is  suspended  during  coverture ; '•^^  sometimes 
by  statute  there  is  full  remedy  at  law;**  but  usually 
such  contracts  are  enforced  only  by  courts  of  oquity,-'j 
which  are  not  hampered  by  the  fiction  of  unity  of  hus- 
band and  wife.'^''  After  the  death"  of  the  promisor,'-^ 
or  promisee,'^  the  remedy  is  at  law,  as  it  is  after  a  decree 
of  absolute  divorce  between  them.'"  Thus,  an  ante- 
nuptial contract  between  husband  and  wife  renouncing 
or  settling  marriage  i)roperty  rights  is  not  oxtinguisiiod 
by  marriage,^'  nor  is  a  i)roniissory  note  from  liusband 
to  wife  in  consideration  of  marriage.'"  One  of  several 
covenantor's  marries  one  of  several  covenantees,  the 
covenant  is  released.^  A  woman  marries  one  of  a  linn 
which  is  indcbteJ  to  her  ;  by  an  antenui)tial  seltlemoul 
her  property  is  secured  to  her,  her  riglit  against  tlio 
firm  is  not  extinguished.*^  A  married  woman  buj's  a 
note  against  her  husband,  ho  never  asks  her  for  it  or 
asserts  his  marriage  right  to  it,  it  is  not  extinguished.** 
A  woman  just  before  her  marriage  actually  assigns  a 
note  against  her  future  husband  to  a  third  party,**  but 
does  not  indorse  it  till  after  her  marriage,  the  note  is 
not  extinguished.*'  A  husband  takes  an  assignment  o  i 
a  claim  against  his  wife  from  a  third  party,  ho  the  i 
assigns  it  back,  it  is  extinguished.*^  A  woman  mor  e 
gagor  marries  the  mortgagee,  the  mortgage  is  release  r 
in  spite  of  a  married  woman's  property  act.**  A  statu  i 
secures  a  married  woman  her  separate  property ;  si  ( 
has  an  antenuptial  note  from  her  husband;  she  ma  it 
sue  Inm  on  it, ^"according  to  different  practice,  at  law,«^ 


57  CONTRACTS   BETWEEN.  g   44 

or  in  equity/'-  but  a  debt  duo  her  by  him  for  antenup- 
tial services  is  released  in  spite  of  such  a  statute. ^-^ 

1  This  Rpcms  s:'lf  evident;  covenants  In  the  instrument  might, 
however,  be  alFected. 

2  Ante,  I  38. 

3  Flenner,  29  Ind.  564,  566  ;  Power  v.  Lester,  23  N.  Y.  527,  529. 

4  See  Baker  II.  Hall,  12  V'^s.  4!)7;  Miirriot  r.  Tli<«mnsoii,2 1'.  Wms.»«; 
FitZKerald,  Law  R.  2  P.  C.  83;  I'rice,  Law  K.  U  Ch.  J)iv.  \S.i,  Ififi;  King 
V.  (Jreen,2Ste\vt.  l.«,  l.^') ;  19  .\ni.  Dec.  Jfi;  l.oni;  v.  Klnnev,4»  Ind.  2:ti"), 
2SH  ;  i-'lenner,  29  Ind.  HM,  566:  buttles  r.  Wliitlnck,  4  M<in.  451.  452; 
Mitchell, 4  Moti.  r{.:wn,:wi  ;  Carleton,  72  Me.  Il.j,  1  Hi ;  (;u)>till  ?•.  Home, 
f3  Me.  40.5, 40'< ;  IJartoii, :«  Md.  214,224  ;  Chupniun  r.  KelloKg,  102  Mass. 
246  248 ;  .Abbott  >'.  Winchester,  lO.i  Muss.  Ill ;  V(.jf<-1,  -'i  Mo.  161  ;  liur- 
Jelsh  c.  ("oniii.  22  N.  J£.  118,  127,  128  ;  .W  .Am.  Dec.  23(1 ;  Rims  v.  George, 
3.-.  X.  ir.  4(!7,  KW  :  Power  v.  I.cst.r,  17  How.  I'r.  413,  415;  23  N.  V.  .527, 
.52'! ;  Sinilfv,  IHOhio  St..>13,  514  ;  }5oatri«ht  /•.  Wiiifiate, Tread.  521, .522  ; 
Mi-C;iin].b.'ll,2  I.ea,  (ifU,  <i'i4  ;  Rennett  r.  Wiiiliel(l,  4  Hei.sk.  440,  444; 
Barron,  24  Vt.  37.j,  39»  ;  EwcU's  Lead.  Cas.  "  C overture,"  245. 

5  Long  II.  Kinney,  49  Ind.  23.5.  238  ;  post,  I  67. 
8    Flenner, 29  Ind.  .564, .5ftS  ;  pmt,  'il  171-176. 

7  Rarton,  32  Md.  214, 224  ;  post,  ??  52-56. 

8  Suttles  V.  Whitiock,  4  Mon.  451,  452. 

9  Richards,  2  Ram.  <fe  .\dol.  447,  4."1  ;  Kini?  v.  Oreen,  2  Stewt.  13:{, 
135;  19  .Ala.  De--.  40.  Svc  <  i.tton  r.  KiiiK,  2  Vern.  290;  Acton  v. 
Pierce,  2  Vern.  4.SU.    Consult  ante,  J  41  ;  poxt,  i  '-V^i. 

10  Long  V.  Kinney,  49  Ind.  2:15,  2:t.i.  See  Cage  v.  Acton,  1  Raym. 
515;  Milbourne  c.  Kwart,  5 '1  irni  Rep.  'Ml  ;  Foord,  5  Term  Rep.  386  ; 
Cannel  r.  Rucl<U',  2  I».  Wnis.  212  ;  Ewhank  v.  Hailowell,  2  Rro.  C.  C. 
22U  ;  Furger  v.  Kenton,  1  Vern.  408 ;  post  i  266. 

11  Cannel  v.  Buckle,  2  P.  Wms.  242;  Moore  v.  Kills,  Bnnb.  205; 
Cotton,  2  Vern.  2;k) ;  Neves  i'.  Scott,9  How.  l''6.20H;  Westi'.  Howard, 
2o(niri.  .^>H|,  .VH7  ;  Camp  i'.  Smith,  61  Cia.  449,451  ;  Bennett  i'.  Winfleld, 
4  Hemk.  410,  417  ;  Stewart  M.  &  I),  i  40. 

12  Discussed  fully,  Stewart  M.  &  T).  ??  32-43. 

13  McCampbell,  2  Lea,  661,  GCA  ;  Bennett  v.  Winlield,  4  Ileisk.  440, 
444,  447  ;  pout,  i  263. 

4  Russ  I'.  George,  45  X.  H.  467,  468,  469. 

5  S(>ep')s^  EuuiT.vBi.K  .Ski-aiiate  Estate,  JJ  107-2:6. 
i    See  post,  Stati'TOky  Sei-akate  Estate;,  U  217-243. 

'    Wilson, 36  Cnl.  447,  l-V),  4."i3  ;  Flenner. 29  Ind.  .564.  .566  ;  Carleton,  72 
11.5,  116  ;  Burton,  32  Md.  214,  224  :  Power  t:  Lester,  17  How.  Pr.  4i:i, 
J    23  N.  Y.  627,  529.     Contra,  Smiley,  IH  Ohio  St.  405,  408. 

Barton,  .32  Md.  214,  225  ;  post,  §  229. 
*     Long  1'.  Kinney,  49  Ind.  2^5,  2.38. 
^    Ouptill  ('.  Home,  63  Me.  405,  408. 
Si   Chapman  v.  Kellogg,  102  Ma.ss.  246.  243. 

Post,  Suits  Between-  Hi-.sbaxd  axd  Wefe,  H  52-.56. 
'  King  >•.  Green,  2  Stewt.  133,  i:;5.    See  Tucker  v.  Fenns,  110  Mass 
t    Cormerais  v.  Wesselhoeft,  114  Ma.ss.  .5.50. 
.  ■U'ilson,  36  CaL  447, 4-50,  4.54  ;  Flenner,  2.)  I:id.  .564,  568. 


g  45  coxruACTJ  bstw^ien.  53 

26  Barton,  32  ild.  214,  224  ;  post,  i  53. 
20  Ante.  U  :«•  -J- 

27  As  to  effect  of  death,  see  Stewart  5X.  &  D.  }?  4S2-47r». 
2S  Burton,  32  Md.  2H,  224. 

2J    JlitcheU,  40  ilon.  B.  3i,  381. 

30    See  Webster,  53  Me.  139, 144  ;  4  Am.  Kep.  2.53  ;  Stewart  M.  A  D. 
i  442. 
.".1    C.-ane  v.  (Sough,  4  Md.  317,  331  ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  U  ^■-.  -Jlil. 

32  Wright.  oJ  Barh.  .t05,  .JO;: ;  a  statute. 
Xi    Suttles  V.  Whitlock,  4  Mo:).  4.51,  4-52. 

34  Bonnett  v.  Wlnfleld,  4  Ilfisk.  440,  414,  447. 

3.5  Buss  I'.  Georg.',  45  X.  H.  487,  46-*,  46a. 

38  As  to  AssioxMKXTS  ix  Fraud  of  Fdtubk  SporsK,  see  Stew- 
art M.  &  D.  i  44. 

37  GuptUl  I'.  Home,  63  Me.  405,  408. 

33  Chapman  v.  Kellogg,  102  Miis-s.  246,  248. 
3:)  Long  V.  Klniiej',  49  Ind.  2.3.5, 2.38. 

40  Cases  cited  supra,  n.  17. 

41  Wilson,  36  Cal.  44V,  4.50,  451. 

42  Barton,  32  Md.  214,  224. 

43  Smiley,  18  Ohio  St.  543,  514.    Cw/m,  Carleto:i,r2  Me.  lir.,  iirt. 

^  4j.  The  relation  of  debtor  and  creditor  batwoon  hus- 
band and  wife.  —  .Vt-i-nnling  to  the  terms  of  .seclimis  41 - 
44  the  relation  of  debtor  and  creditor  may  exist  between 
husband  and  wif»3.'  No  stronger  proof  is  required  to 
establish  this  relation  in  this  case  than  in  other  cast-s  ;  - 
and  the  wife  or  husband  has  no  legal  advantage  over, 
or  disadvantage  with  respect  to  other  creditors.'  Thus, 
if  a  husband  may  prefer  a  stranger  creditor  he  may 
prefer  his  wife  if  she  is  a  creditor,^  but  his  ^\'ife  has  us 
■wife  no  lien  on  his  estate  for  his  debts  to  her.^  Thougli 
a  husband  has  bought  with  her  money  land  in  his 
name,  liis  assignee  without  notice  takes  it  free  of  the 
trust,*  and  she  must  proceed  against  her  husband  as  any 
other  creditor  would  for  breach  of  contract  or  trusts 
Still  this  relation  between  them  is  not  altogether  nor- 
mal, for  it  is  sometimes  recognized  only  in  equity.^ 

1  See  also  collected  eases  as  to  law  of  different  States  in  {  48. 

2  3It'.vers  v.  King,  42  Md.  65,  70. 


0.1  CONTRACTS   BETWEKX.  ?   48 

3  Rowland  v.  Plummer,  50  Ala.  182,  193 ;  Mayfleld  i'.  Kilgour,  U 
Md.  240,  24J. 

4  Rowland  v.  Plumm?r,  50  Ala.  182, 193  ;  Tomlinson  v.  Matthews, 
98  111.  182  ;  KrciK.'ll  r.  MotU-v,  fii  yif.  :t2fi,  :i27  ;  Mavficld  r.  Kilsjour.  :U 
Md.  240,  244  ;  Crane  r.  Barkdoll,  M  Md.  5;t4,52.5  ;  Jaycox  v.  Caldwell,  .51 
N.  Y.  395,  398  ;  Rose  v.  Latshaw,  90  I'a.  St.  238,  241  ;  Lahr,  90  Pa.  St. 
507,  51L 

6  Betts,  18  Ala.  787. 

6  Gorman  v.  Wood,  68  Oa.  524,  627. 

7  B"tts,  IS  Ala.  787. 

8  A)ile,  i  42  ;  post,  H  127,  132. 

§  46.  Becent  decisions  as  to  contracts  between  husband 
and  wife.  —  The  result  of  the  eombination  of  the  statutes 
of  the;  various  States  with  the  unwritten  law  may  be 
seen  in  recent  and  leading  cases  in  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States,^  and  in  Alabama,-'  Arkan.sas,' 
California,*  Colorado,*  Connoclicut,^  Delaware,'  Flor- 
ida,* Georgia,*  Illinois,'"  Indiana,''  Iowa,  '^  Kansas,'^ 
Kentucky,'*  Louisiana,''  Maine,"'  Maryland,'"  Ma.ssa- 
chusetts,i8  Michigan,"  Minnesota,^"'  Mis.sissiippi,-'  Mis- 
souri,^ Nebraska,'-'*  Nevada,'^'  New  Hainpsliire,''^  New 
Jersey,^  Now  York,"  North  Carolina,^  Oliio,*  Oregon,'"' 
Pennsylvania,^'  Rhode  Island,*-*  .South  Carolina,**  Ten- 
nc.s.see,**  Te.xas,*^  Vermont,*''  Virginia,^^  West  Yirginia,*^ 
Wisconsin.*'  P.  stnnptial  settlement-s  are  fully  dis- 
cussed in  another  chapter.*" 

1  Bank  v.  Banks,  101  X'.  S.  240,  244  ;  Jones  v.  Clifton,  101  U.  S.  22-5, 
229;  Ke.sniT  v.  Trteff,  'ts  l'.  .s.  .id;  Walliii^sford  v.  Allen,  10  Peters, 
583,  693  ;  Sexton  v.  Wheaton,  8  Wheat.  22:i ;  1  Am.  L.  C.  1. 

2  OoodlPtt  1'.  Hansel,  66  Ala.  151 ;  Harden  i'.  Darwin,  firt  Ala.  55; 
Haynic  c.  Miller,  61  Ala.  62  ;  Helnietag  r.  Kronk.  61  .Via.  67  ;  McMil- 
lan r.  IVaoock,  .57  Ala.  127  ;  Barker,  Ifl  .Via.  473  ;  stone  )'.  (iazzam,  46 
Ala.  ■-•liit  ;  Reel  v.  Overall,  39  Ala.  i:«  ;  ({oree  r.  Walthall,  44  .Via.  161  ; 
Goodrich,  44  Ala.  670  ;  Johnson  v.  West,  43  .\la.  ftS'.l ;  Bibb  v.  Pope,  43 
Ala.  I'K) ;  Northlngton  j'.  Faber,  52  Ala.  4.S ;  Barclay  t'.  Plant,  50  Ala. 
60:i ;  Rowland  v.  Plummer,  50  Ala.  182;  Halloway  v.  Grace,  50  Ala. 
43 ;  Frierson,  21  Ala.  54;),  .555. 

3  Ward,  36  .\rk.  .'VSR  ;  Chambers  v.  Sallie,  29  Ark.  407  ;  Eddnis  v. 
Buck,  23  Ark.  .507  ;  .Smith  v.  Yell,  8  Ark.  470  ;  Dodd  v.  McCraw,8  Ark. 
10() ;  40  Am.  Dec.  :«!. 

4  Hi?frins,  46  Cal.  2.59 ;  Swain  v.  Duane,  48  Cal.  35S  ;  Rich  v. 
Tul)bs,41  Cil.  31;  Wilson,  36  Cal.  447,4.50  ;  Peck  v.  Brummagin,  31  Cal. 
440 ;  Dow  r.  (Jould,  31  Cal.  (>■-") ;  Fuller  v.  l-Vi^uson.  26  Cal.  546 ;  Burpee 
V.  Bunti,  22  Cal.  194;  Kohner  v.  Asheniur-r,  17  (  al.  578;  Barker  v. 
Koneman,  13  Cal.  9  ;  George  v.  Ransom,  14  Cal.  658. 


I   46  CONTRACTS   BETWEEN.  60 

5  Wells  V.  Caywood,  3  Colo.  487, 494. 

6  Grain  ti.  Shipman,  45  Conn.  572  ;  Boardman,  40  Conn.  1G9  ;  Jen- 
nings V.  Bavis,  :n  Conn.  134  ;  UnderhlU  v.  Morgan,  33  Conn.  105, 107  ; 
Watrous  v.  Walker,  7  Conn.  224. 

7  Kilby  v.  Goodwin,  2  Del.  Ch.  61. 

8  Alston  V.  Bowles,  13  Fla.  117. 

9  Francis  ?•.  Dickel,  6S  Ga.  255,  2.57,  258 ;  Thompson  v.  Feagln,  60 
Ga.  82  ;  Booker  r.  Worrell,  .55  G:v.  332 ;  57  Ga.  235 ;  Shorter  v.  Methir, 
52  Ga.  25  ;  Churchill  v.  CorKer,  25  Ga,  479. 

10  Kinkead,  3  Biss.  405, 410 ;  Breit  v.  Ye.aton,  101  111.  242, 263  ;  Tyber- 
and  r.  Raucke,  96  III.  71  ;  TomlinSDn  v.  Matthews,  9-t  III.  1h2  ;  Hamil- 
ton, 8;i  111.  :«il,  351 ;  Whitford  r.  Daggett,  M  111.  144  ;  Hacknt  v.  Bailey, 
86111.74;  Brooks  r.  Keans.  k6  111.  .T47,  54!);  Morris  v.  Tillson,  81  III. 
607  ;  Hagebust  v.  Eogland,  78  III.  40  ;  Doyle  v.  Kelley,  75  111.  574 ;  Pat- 
ton  r.  Gates,  67  III.  164  ;  Wartman  v.  Price,  47  III.  22  ;  Hessing  v.  Mc 
Closkv,  37  III.  342  ;  Brownell  v.  Dixon,  37  III.  1?7 ;  Finlay  v.  Dicker- 
son,  29  111.  9  ;  Powers  V.  Green,  14  III.  387. 

11  Sims  V.  Ricketts,  3.5  Ind.  181,  1;K)-1'14  ;  9  Am.  Rep.  679;  Lino  .'. 
Blizzard  70  Ind.  25  ;  Buchanan  ?'.  I-cc,  6:i  Ind.  117  ;  Sherman  t'.  Hog- 
land,  .54  Ind.  578  ;  Brookbank  r.  Kcnnard.  41  IikI.  3:'.:i  ;  Brick  v.  Scott, 
47  Ind.  2;I9;  Klnneman  v.  Pyle,  44  Ind.  275;  l{:i\vrll  i:  Kli'in,44  lurl. 
290  ;  Kixou  V.  Cuffy,  33  Ind.  211 ;  Malto.x  v.  Highshue,  39  Ind.  95. 

12  Lenton  v.  Crosbv,  .54  Iowa,  474  ;  Courtwrtght,  53  Iowa,  57  ;  Rob- 
ertson, 25  Iowa,  3.50,  ;j.55  ;  McMuUen.  10  Iowa.  412;  Wright,  16  Iowa, 
496  ;  Logan  v.  Hall,  19  Iowa,  491. 

13  Greer,  24  Kan.  101, 104  :  Horder,  23  Kan.  391  ;  Dickson  i\  Randall 
19  Kan.  212  ;  Faddis  v.  Wooldncls.  10  Kan.  5S  ;  Monroy  v.  May.  9  Kan. 
466  ;  Going  v.  Orus,  8  Kan.  85. 

14  Scarborough  r.  Watkins,  9  Mo;i.  B.  WO,  545 ;  50  Am.  Dec.  528 ; 
Barnabv,  14  Bush,  485;  Campb(>ll  r.  Galbreath,  12  Bush,  45);  Powell, 
5  Busb,'6i!),  620  ;  Latimer  v.  Gleuu,  2  Bush,  543  ;  Kinniard  v.  Daniels, 
13  Mou.  B.  496. 

15  .\mes,  .S3  La.  An.  1317  ;  Lehman  v.  Levy,  30  La,  An.  745;  Willis 
r.  Ward,  TO  La.  An.  V2x2  ;  Newman  v.  Eaton,  27  La,  An.  341 ;  Warfleld 
V.  Bobo,  21  La.  An.  466. 

16  Blake,  64  Me.  177, 131  ;  Bond  v.  Cummings,  70  Me.  125 ;  French  v. 
Holmes,  67  Me.  186  ;  fJrant'!).  Ward,  64  Me.  239  ;  McKoe  v.  Garcelon, 
60  Me.  167;  11  Am.  Rep.  200;  Randall  v.  Lnnt,  51  Me.  240;  Allen  v. 
Hooper,  50  Me.  371,  374  ;  Winslow  v.  Gilbreth,  .50  Me, !«  ;  Motlev  r. 
Saw  ver,  H  Me.  540 ;  .3.8  Me.  68  ;  Johnson  v.  Stillings,  35  Me.  427  ;  Davis 
V.  Herrick,  37  Me.  397. 

17  Sabel  v.  Slinghiff,  52  Md.  132,  134  ;  Thomas  v.  Standlford,  49  Md. 
181,  185;  Odenbal  r.  Devlin,  48  JId.  439,446;  Trader  r.  I.owe,  45  Md. 
1,  14;  Keller,  45  Md.  270,  277  ;  Drurv  v.  Briscoe,  42  Md.  IM.  1(,2  ;  Mvers 
V.  King,  42  Md.  6.5,  70 ;  Gebb  v.  Rose,  40  Md.  ;W7,  ».rZ  :  Hill,  :J8  Md."  18:!, 
18.5;  Preston  v.  Frver,  38  Md.  ■221,225;  Barton,  .32  .Md.  214,  224  ;  Mav- 
field  I'.  Kilgour,  31  Md.  240,  244  ;  Knhn  r.  Stanstield,  2-(  Mrl.  210,215; 
Jones,  18  Md.  404, 46S  ;  McCubbin  v.  Patterson,  16  JIil.  179, 185  ;  Stockett 
V.  Hallidav,  9  Md.  480,  498  ;  Bowie  v.  Stonestreet,0  Md.  418, 430  ;  Crana 
V.  Barkdoil,  59  Md.  534,  535. 

18  Fellows  r.  Smith,  130  Mass.  378  ;  Cowen  r.  Donaldson,  128  ^Liss. 
169;  Degii:in  r.  Farr,  126  Mass.  297,  29S  ;  Hawkins  r.  Providence  Rail- 
road, 119  Mass.  596  ;  20  .Vm.  Rep.  .^>) ;  Whitnev  i:  WheeU-r,  IIP  Mass. 
490;  Towle,  114  Mass.  167  ;  Bassett,  112  Mass.  99, 100;  Bancroft  r.  Curtis, 
108  Ma.ss.  47  ;  Abbott  )'.  Winchester,  105  Mass.  115  ;  Chapman  v.  Kel- 


61  CONTRACTS  BETWEEN.  §  46 

logg,  102  Mass.  2-16,  248  ;  Knowles  v.  Hull,  99  Mass.  562,  564  ;  Jackson  v. 
Parks,  10  Cush.  5.50;  Lord  v.  Parker,  .S  Allen,  127,  129  ;  C'arley  v.  Green, 
12  Allen,  HH,  106  ;  Motte  v.  AlgL-r,  15  Gray,  322,  323. 

19  Hvfle  V.  Powpli,  47  Mieh.  im ;  Randall,  37  Mich.  563,  571  ;  Jenne 
V.  Marb'lP,  37  Mirli.  319,  321  ;  Looniis  v.  Brush,  36  Mich.  40,  46  ;  Ran- 
som, 30  Mich.  32.S,  SW;  I)(niri"S  v.  Conklin,  22  Mich.  255  ;  Burdeno  v. 
Auiperse,  14  Mich.  91,  97;  Watson  v.  Thurber,  11  Mich.  4.57. 

20  Sandiord  v.  John.son,  24  Minn.  172 ;  Tullis  v  Firdloy,  9  Minn.  79. 

21  Gregory  v.  Bodds,  60  Miss.  .5^19,  .552  ;  f 'haffc  v.  Bcnvit,  60  Miss.  ."M, 
38  ;  Memphis  1'.  Si^rufjirs,  .50  :\[iss.  2-i4  ;  Kaufman  r.  Whitney,  .50  Miss. 
103  ;  Thorns,  45  Miss,  ^(j.! ;  IJutterfi  -Id  v.  .Stanton  ,  44  Miss.  15. 

22  Morrison  v.  Thistle,  67  Mo.  590,  601  ;  Tennison,  46 Mo.  77  ;  Frissel 
V.  Rozier,  19  Mo.  44S,  44  ). 

23  Omaha  v.  Bartlett,  8  Neb.  319  ;  Aultman  v.  Obermeyer,  6  Neb. 
260,261. 

24  Nev.  Rev.  1873,  i  169. 

25  Cough  V.  Russell,  55  N.  H.  279  ;  Houston  v.  Clark,  .50  N.  H.  479  ; 
Russ  r.  Cieorge,  4.5  N.  H.  4(i7,  4(JS  ;  Patterson,  45  N.  H.  104,  166;  Albin 
V.  Lord,  39  N.  H.  196,  203 ;  Jewell  v.  Porter,  31  N.  H.  34,  as  ;  Burleigh 
V.  Coffin,  22  N.  II.  118,  127. 

26  Woodrufif  V.  Clark,  42  N.  J.  L.  198  ;  Skillman,  13  N.  J.  Eq.  403. 

27  Whltaker,  52  N.  Y.  370,  373  ;  Woodworth  v.  Sweet,  .51  N.  Y.  8,  II  • 
Jaycox  V.  Caldwell,  51  N.  Y.  3:i5,  398 ;  Winans  v.  Peebles,  32  N.  Y.  423' 
426;  White  V.  Wager,  25  N.  Y.  328,  :J32  ;  Abbev  )'.  Dego,  44  Barb.  374, 
380;  Damon  v.  Hall,  3.8  Barb.  140;  Savage  v.  O'Neill,  42  Barb.  .378;  44 
N.  Y.  298  ;  Wright,  59  Barb.  527,  .52S  ;  Perkins,  62  B.'irb.  406  ;  Zimme- 
inan  v.  Erhard,  58  How.  Pr.  U  ;  Kellv  r.  Case,  18  Hun,  472  ;  Towns- 
hend,  1  Abb.  N.  C.  81  ;  .Seymour  )■.  Fellows,  53  How.  Pr.  471  ;  Van 
Order,  8  Hun,  315;  Meeker  v.  Wriglit,  11  Hun,  535;  Livingston,  2 
Johns.  CIi.  5:58. 

28  Warlick  v.  White,  86  N.  C.  139;  41  Am.  Rep.  4.53;  Reucher  v. 
Winne,  8i>  N.  C.  268,  275  ;  George  ?'.  High,  85  N.  C.  99 ;  Dula  v.  Young, 
70  N.  C.  4.50  ;  Kee  v.  Vassar,  2  Ired.  Eq.  5.5.3. 

29  Crooks,  .34  Ohio  St.  610 ;  Huston  v.  Cone,  24  Ohio  .St.  11 ;  Oliver  ?•• 
Moore,  23  Ohio  St.  473 ;  26  Ohio  St.  298  ;  Smiley,  18  Ohio  St.  54.3,  644  ; 
Fowler  v.  Trebeln,  16  Ohio  St.  493,  497. 

30  Ellelt  V.  Heach,  5  Oreg.  255. 

31  Platterv,  91  Pa.  St.  474  :  Bedell,  87  Pa.  St.  510  ;  Kelly,  86  Pa.  St. 
232  ;  Darlington,  86  Pa.  St.  512 :  27  Am.  Hep.  726  ;  Morris  v.  Zeigler,  71 
Pa.  St.  4.50;  Vance  v.  Nagle,  70  Pa.  St.  176  ;  Winch  v.  James,  6S  Pa.  St. 

2  »7  ;  Aramon,  Ki  Pa.  St.  2i»7  ;  Crawford,  61  Pa.  St.  .52;  Berger,  60  Pa.  St. 
408  ;  Yicker  v.  Martin,  80  Pa.  St.  138 ;  Hitner,  .54  Pa.  St.  114  ;  Johnston, 
31  Pa.  St.  450,  4.53;  Bear, :«  Pa.  St.  .52.5,  .527;  Coates  v.  Gerlach,  44  Pa. 
St.  45  ;  Miller,  44  Pa.  St.  170  ;  Dillinger,  3.5  Pa.  St.  357 ;  Hutton  i'.  Duey, 

3  Pa.  St.  100,  105. 

32  Steadman  v.  Wilbur,  7  R.  T.  481. 

.33  Wade  v.  Fisher,  9  Rich.  Eq.  294;  Hodges  v.  Cobb,  8  Rich.  50; 
Reeder  v.  Flynn,  6  S.  C.  216. 

M    McCampbell,  2  Lea,  061,  664 ;  PUe,  6  Lea,  508  ;  40  Am.  Rep.  50. 

35  Wellborn  7'.  Oddf-llow,  56  Tex.  .501  ;  Hall,  .52  Tex.  294  ;  30  Am. 
Rep.  725  ;  Ximines  i'.  Smith,  39  Tex.  49 ;  Hutchinson  v.  Mitchell,  39 
Tex.  487. 

.36    LPavItt  V.  Jones,  51  Vt.  423  ;  41  Am.  Rep.  849  ;  Cardell  v.  Rider, 
35  Vt.  47 ;  Pierce,  25  Vt.  511 ;  Barron,  24  Vt.  375,  398. 
H.  &  W.-6. 


g  47         WRONGS  BETWEEN   HUSBAND  AND  WIFE.  62 

nr  Johnston  v  Gill.  27  Gratt.  587;  Findley  11  Gratt  4M,  Jones  r 
Ohpiichaiii,  10  Gratt  253,  Lewis  v  Carpenter  s  Gratt.  148;  Charles,  8 
Gratt.  486 

3S    Fo.\  i\  Jones,  1  W  Va.  205 

•■?;•  Wochaska,  45  Wis  423;  Carpenter  v.  Tatro,  36  Wis  297;  Beard 
V  Dedolph  2)  Wis.  135. 

40    I'ost,  U  9!>-l.^ 

Art.  Ill  — \7rongs  Between  Husband  and  Wife 

?  47.    Classified, 

5  48.    Civil  wrongs. 

i  4j.    Criminal  wrongs. 

?  47.  Wrongs  Ijetwoon  husband  and  wife  classified. — 
Wrong.s  between  liusbaml  and  wife  may  be  civil  ot 
criminal,'  to  person  or  to  property.'^  The  tendency  of 
modern  law  is  towards  criminal  liability  and  civil  im- 
munity for  wrongs  tc  person,^  and  civil  liability  and 
criminal  immunity  for  wrong.s  to  property.'  Thus,  a 
Avife  cannot  recover  damages  from  her  husband  for 
beating  her,""  but  the  State  Avill  punish  him  therefor;* 
and  a  husband  cannot  steal  his  wife's  propertj'^,'  but 
may  be  held  civilly  responsible  therefor,* 

1  Abbott  67  Me.  304,  .S06,  307  ,  24  Am.  Rpp.  27  ;  post,  ??  48,  49. 

2  ilinior,  4  Lans.  421.  422,  423 ;  post,  |  J  4S,  43 

3  See  Phillips  r.  Barnet,  1  Q  B.  Div.  436,430;  Peters,  42  Iowa,  183, 
184  ,  Abbott,  fi7  Me  304  30f; ;  24  Am.  Rep  27;  Libby  r.  Berrv,  74  Me. 
2Sfi,  2S8;  Comnir.iiw.  r.  Mc.Vfcv,  10-!  Mass.  4.iS  ;  Adams,  100  Ma.ss.  :i6.i. 
;^i;t:  Kradliv  -.  state,  1  Miss.  V,l\  I.-,7;  Morris  )■.  Palm. 'r,  3  1  N.  II.  123, 
12f>,  Frefthv,42  ISaib  au.i'.l');  I.onnendvkp,  44  Barb.  3(.<i,  .SliS  ;  .Mirii -r, 
4  Lans.  421,  422  ;  .state  r.  Mabrev,  01  N.  C.  .592,  .^!i3 ;  .State  r.  Oliver.  70 
N  C.  60,  fil  ;  Whipp  v.  State,  :i4  Ohio  St.  87,  SS  ;  32  Am.  Rep.  :«9  ;  (Jor- 
man  v.  State,  42  Tex.  221 ,  Commonw.  r.  Barry,  2  Green  Cr.  R.  285, 
289  )i-  People  c.  Winter,  2  Parker  Cr.  R.  10. 

4  See  Queen  r.  Kennv,  2  Q.  B.  Div.  ;«)7,  311 ;  Reg.  v.  Tolfree.  1 
Moody  C.  C.  243;  Rex  r.  Willis,  1  Moody  C.  (!.  375;  Reg.  r.  (ilassie,  7 
Co.x  C.  C  1  ;  Regiiia  t\  Mutters,  10  Vox  C.  C.  50 ;  Reg.  r.  Averv,  5  r.  C. 
L.J  215;  Bell  C.  C.  150,  Thomas.  51  111.  102,  165;  Lamphier  v.  State, 
70  Ind  317,324;  State  v.  Banks,  48  Ind.  197.199;  Peters,  42  Iowa,  18.3, 
184  ;  Commonw.  t'.  Hartnett,  3  Grav,  4.50 ;  Snvder  ?>.  People,  26  Jlich. 
106,  108,  111  ,  ri  Am.  Rep.  :«)2 ;  Minier,  4  Laiis.  421,  423;  Walker  v. 
Reumy, ,»  Pa.  St.  410,  414  ;  Overton  r.  State,  43  Te.v.  616,  CIS. 

o    Abbott,  67  Me.  304,  308 ;  24  Am.  Rep.  27  ;  post,  ?  48. 

6  State  r.  Oliver,  70  N.  C.  60,  01  ;  post,  i  49. 

7  Thomas,  51  111.  162, 165  ;  pnxl,  ?  49. 

8  See  Larison,  9  111.  .\pp.  27,  31 ;  Clavton,  .32  III  493,  498  ;  Peters,  42 
Iowa,  183, 184 ;  Black,  30  X.  J.  Kq.  215 ;  Minier,  4  Lans.  421,422 ;  Cantrell, 
3  Tenn.  Ch.  426,  4:i0  ;  post,  U  4S,  .5:),  54. 


G3  WRONGS   BETWEEN   HUSBAND   AND   WIFE.        I   48 

\  48.  Civil  wrongs  between  husband  and  wife. — Matri- 
inoiiial  offenses  inodiry  the  normal  rights  and  obliga- 
tions of  married  iDer3ons,'  and  form  the  basis  of 
matrimonial  suits.^  Some  of  these  matrimonial  offenses 
mi'j;ht  be  civil  wrongs  to  tlio  person  between  strangers,^ 
but  between  husband  and  wife  thej^  give  no  right  of 
ac-tion  in  tort.^  Husband  and  wife  are  one,*  and  mar- 
riage is  a  perisetually  operating  discharge  of  rights 
arising  from  personal  wrongs.*^  Thus,  one  spouse  can- 
not recover  damages  against  tlie  other  for  slander,^  or 
assault  and  battery.*  A  husljand  has  no  right  to 
assault  his  wife,^  but  her  remedy  lie:^  in  an  action  for 
divorce  for  eruelty,'^  in  criminal  proceedings,"  in  suing 
out  articles  of  the  peace  ''^at  his  expense,'^  and  formerly 
in  a  writ  of  supjMcavit?^  He  lias  no  right  to  shut  her 
up,^5  but  her  remedy  is  hj  writ  of  habeas  corpus,i^  nor 
does  a  right  of  a(;'ion  arise  after  tlie  marriage  has  been 
dissolved  by  divorce,"  or  death  ;  '*  tlie  question  is  not  one 
of  procedure  but  one  of  svibstantial  riglit.^^  As  to  prop- 
erty, however,  the  separate  existence  of  husband  and 
wife  is  recognized  iu  equity^  and  by  statutes ;-i  and 
the  wife  may  have  an  injunction  to  protect  her  estate 
from  her  husband,"  and  a  writ  of  ejectment  if  he 
cx(dudes  her  froni  her  real  cstatc,^^  and  under  express 
statute  full  i>ower  to  sue  her  husband  for  any  injury  to 
her  property;'^'  but  the  rules,  that  married  women 
statutes  do  not  affect  the  relation  of  husljand  and  ^\ife,^» 
and  tliat  property  statutes  do  not  affect  i)ersonal  rights,^'' 
are  applied,  and  a  statute  securing  to  a  married  woman 
her  separate  property  does  not  enable  her  to  sue  her 
husband  in  trespass  or  trover  for  breaking  or  remov- 
ing her  furniture.^  As  to  a  husband  suing  his  wife, 
lie  is  liable  for  her  torts  himself. 2*  As  to  antenuptial 
torts,  they  are  completely'  discharged  by  marriage.^ 
(Remedies  are  discussed  under  suits  between  husband 
and  wife.^") 


I   49         WRONGS   BETWEEN    HUSBAJVD   AND   WIFE,  64 

1  Stewart  M.  .fe  D.  §?  16o,  17.V180. 

2  Stewart  M.  &  D.  index,  Matrimoxial  SmTS. 

3  Stewart  M.  &  D.  U  ITS,  261-273,  283. 

•1  Phillips  I'.  Barnet,  1  Q.  B.  Div.  43R,  438, 4^9 ;  Peters,  42  Iowa,  183, 
ISl ;  Abbott,  f)7  Mo.  :«M,  :««  ;  24  Am.  Rep.  27  :  Ubb.v  ;•.  Berry,  74  Me. 
2-;6,  28S  ;  Freethv,  42  Barb.  Ml,  Mo;  Loiigeiid.vke,  44  Barb.  aOCt,  SUS  ; 
Perkins,  62  Barb.  .>«) ;  Minier,  4  Laiis.  421,  422  ;  Sluittleworth,  55N.  Y. 
025  ;  Walker  v  Beamy,  3(1  Pa.  St.  410,  414. 

.5  Phillips  V.  Burnet,  1  Q.  B.  Div.  436,  4:!8,  43'J  ;  Abbott.  67  Me.  mi, 
306 

t,    Abbott,  67  Mo.  304,  307  ;  24  Am.  Rop.  27. 

7  Abbott,  67  Me.  304,  .'iOS  ;  24  Am.  Rep.  27 ;  Freethy,  42  Barb.  641, 645. 

8  Phillips  )'.  Barnet,  1  Q.  B.  Div.  436,  43i) ;  Peters.  42  Iowa,  183,  184  ; 
T.ihby  r.  Berrv,  74  Me.  2S(i,  2SS  ;  Abbott,  07  Me.  304,  ;J06  ;  24  Am.  Rep. 
27  ;  Loncrenrt.vkp,  44  Barb.  366,  368 ;  Schultz,  89  N.  Y.  684 ;  Com.  v. 
Burr.v,  2  Green  Cr.  11.  2ii,  2S8  n. 

9  Kiiight.  31  Iowa,  4.51,  453 ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  §  270  ;  Desty  Crlm.  L. 
i  m  i. 

10  Stewart  M.&D.U  261-273, 

11  r:>st.i40. 

12  Phillips  V.  Barnet,  1  Q.  B.  Div.  436,  438  ;  Morris  v.  Palmer,  39 
>'.  H.  123.  127. 

1 J  Morris  v.  Palmer,  33  N.  n.  123, 12r) ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  f  389. 

14  Adams,  100  Mass.  305,  303  ;  1  Am.  Rep.  11!. 

lo  Kelly,  Law  R.  2  Pro.  &  D.  31,  32  ;  post,  i  62. 

lb  Abbott,  67  Me.  304,  307  ;  24  Am.  Rep.  27. 

i;  Phillips  r.  Barnet,  1  Q.  B.  Div.  4:!6.  43) ;  Abbott,  67  Me.  .301,  306, 
■M) ;  24  Am.  Kep.  27  ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  i  442. 

13  Phillips  V.  Barnet,  1  Q.  B.  Div.  436,  440. 

n  Phillips  )■.  Barnet,  1  Q.  B.  Div.  436,  438,  433  ;  Abbott,  67  Me.  SM, 

30(1;  24  Am.  Rep.  27. 

20  Ante.  U  38,  42. 

21  .4n<e,  §§  :«,  43. 

22  See  Heck  v.  Vollmer,  23  Md.  507,  51L 

23  Minior,  4  Lans.  421>  422. 

24  Lari.son,  9  111.  App.  27,  31 ;  see  Peters,  42  Iowa,  183, 184, 
2.0  Ants,  I  16 

26  Ante,  I  15. 

27  Walker  ?-  Reamv,  36  Pa.  St.  410, 414.  Consult  Snyder  v.  People. 
25  Mich.  106.  108,  111  ;  1?  Am.  Rep.  :W2  ;  ante,  J?  15, 16. 

2=S  Abbott.  67  Me.  300,  303 ;  24  \m.  Rep.  27  :  post,  §  66.  Cousult  post, 
U  5.'-.56  ;  Berdell  v.  Parkhurst,  13  Hun,  3.58,  300. 

23    Inference  from  Abbott,  67  Me.  308,  307  ;  24  Am.  Rep.  27  ;  and 
cases  in  n  4,  aiipra. 
30    Post,  II  52,  56. 

?  49.  Criminal  wrongs  between  husband  and  wife. — 
Matrimonial  offon3Cs  —  .such   as  adultery,'   dusertion,^ 


65  WRONGS   BETWKEN   HUSBAND   AND   AVIFE.  §   49 

cruelty,^  dofatnation  •* — not  only  affect  the  normal 
status  of  husband  and  wife,'  and  are  grounds  for  di- 
vorce,^ but  they  are  crimes  —  offenses  against  the  Stated 
Thus,  prosecutions  of  husband  for  assault  and  battery 
on  wife  are  common,^  and  of  wife  for  assault  and  bat- 
tery on  husband  not  unknown.^  But  the  State  leaves 
the  parties  to  arrange  their  property  rights  between 
themselves  by  agreement, i"  or  by  suit.^^  So  one  spouse 
cannot  steal  from  the  other ''^ — but  qucere,  if  they  are 
living  apart  ^^ — and  even  a  third  party,  who  joins  with 
an  adulterous  wife^'  in  taking  possession  of  her  hus- 
band's property,  is  not  guilty,'^  unless  he  took  part  in 
the  asportation.^"  So  one  spouse  is  not  guilty  of  arson 
in  burning  the  otlier's  house. '^  Married  women  stat- 
utes have  not  changed  the  common  law  as  to  crimes 
between  husband  and  wife.'^ 

1  Stewart  M.  &  D.  U  156,  178,  241-249,  345. 

2  Stewart  M.  &.  T>.  U  177,  249-260. 

3  Stewart  M.  &  D.  U  178,  261-273,  345. 

4  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ??  267,  269,  283. 

5  Stewart  M.  &V>.ll  165, 17r>-180. 

6  Stewart  M.  &.D.  ?§  231,  2:ifl-290. 

7  Whipp  V.  State.  34  Ohio  St.  87,  88,  91 ;  32  Am.  Rep.  359. 

8  See  Bradley  v.  State,  1  Miss.  156,  157 :  State  v.  Mabroy,  ft4  N.  C. 
5:)2,  593  ;  State  v.  Driver,  78  N.  C.  423,  425 ;  Gorman  v.  State,  42  Tex.  521 ; 
Desty  Crim.  h.  i  130  *. 

9  Wliipp  V.  State,  .34  Ohio  St.  87, 88  ;  32  Am.  Rep.  359. 
10    Ante,  II  40^0  ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ??  131-132. 

U    Ante,l-i^- 

12  Qiioeii  );.  Kenny,  2  Q.  B.  Div.  307,  311 ;  Regr.  v.  Tolfree,  1  Moody 
C.  C.  24:{ ;  Hex  v.  Willis,  1  Moody  C.  C.  375  ;  Rhr.  v.  Glassie,  7  Cox  C.  C. 
1  ;  Ri'g.  r.  Mutters,  10  Cox  C.  C.  50  ;  Reg.  v.  Avers-,  5  U.  C.  L.  J.  215  ; 
Bell  C.  C.  150  ;  Thomas  ,  51  III.  162,  16.5  :  Lamphier  v.  State,  70  Ind.  .317. 
:f24  ;  State  v.  Baiilcs,  4S  Ind.  197,  199  ;  Coninionw.  r.  Hartnett,  3  Gray, 
4.50  ;  Snyder  v.  People,  26  Mich.  106,  lOS,  ill  ;  12  Am.  Rep.  ;»2  ;  State  v. 
Parlier,  26  Alb.  I^.  J.  423  ;  Wallcer  v.  Reamy,  30  Pa.  St.  410,  414  ;  Over- 
ton V.  State,  43  Tex.  616,  618. 

13  Lamphier  v.  State,  70  Ind.  317,  3J1 ;  State  r.  Banks,  48  Ind.  197, 
199. 

14  Queen  v.  Kenny,  2  Q.  B.  Div.  397,311  ;  State  ?■.  Banks,  48  Ind. 
197,  199. 

15  Reg.  It.  Taylor,  12  Cox  C.  C.  027;  2  Green  Or.  R.  .32;  Reg.  v. 
Fealherstono,  0  Cox  C.  C.  o76  ;  2  Lead.  C.  C.  362. 


i 


§    50  WILLS   BETWEKN    HUSBAND   AND   MIFE.  ()6 

16  Destj'  Crim.  L.  ?  145  t,  and  cases  there  cited. 

17  Snyder  .'.  People,  26  Mich.  106, 108,  lit ;  12  Am.  Rep.  302. 

18  Thomas,  51  111.  162, 165 ;  Snvder  v.  People,  26  Mich.  103,  108,  111  ; 
12  Am.  Kep.  302  ;  Walker  v.  Beamy,  36  Pa.  St.  410,  -Hi. 


Article  TV.  —  Wills  Between  Husband  and  "Wife. 

?  50.    Effect  of,  generally. 

5  51.    Miscellaneous  points  as  to. 

I  60.  Effect  of  wills  between  husband  and  wife  gener- 
ally.— A  husband  coiild  always  will  his  property  to  Iiis 
wife  as  to  a  stranger,  for  his  will  takes  effect  onh'  on 
his  death,  by  wliieh  the  marriage  unity  is  destroyed.' 
But  a  wife  is  merged  in  her  husband,-  and  cannot  make 
a  will  at  all,^  except  under  a  power,'  or  by  virtue  of  a 
statute,^  or  in  a  rci:)resentative  capacity  ;  ^  and  tliorofore, 
excejjt  in  such  cases,  cannot  will  to  her  husband.'  A 
general  power  in  a  settlement  to  will  enables  her  to 
will  to  her  husband.*'  A  general  statute  authorizing 
"any  person  "  to  make  a  will  does  not  include  married 
■women.3  A  statute  authorizing  a  married  woman  to 
make  a  will,  generally,  authorizei  her  to  will  to  her 
husband,'**  for  there  is  no  additional  incapacity  due  to 
the  marriage  relation,"  as  there  is  i:i  the  case  of  con- 
tracts between  husband  and  wife.'-  Btit  a  statute  en- 
abling her  to  make  a  will,  provided  it  does  not  '-afToct 
the  rights  of  her  husband,"  excludes  a  will  to  her  hus- 
band,'^ as  does,  probably,  a  statute  enabling  her  to  vrill 
only  with  her  husband's  consent."  In  some  States 
wills  in  favor  of  husband  or  wife  are  i^rohibited;  '•'*  in 
some,  one  can  will  only  a  portion  of  his  or  her  estate  to 
the  other ;  '*  in  some  a  widow ''  or  widower'*  must  elect 
to  take  either  what  the  will  gives  or  Avhat  the  law  al- 
lows.'9  Tlie  effect  of  the  will  dei^end:;  on  the  law  exist- 
ing at  the  time  of  the  testator's  death.^ 


67  WILLS    BETWKKN    HUSBAND   AND    WIFK.  f    51 

1  See  T.itt.  ?  IfiS  ;  1  Bish.  JI.  A\'.  ?  3T ;  Morse  v.  Thompson,  4  C\T.h. 
562.  5G7  ;  Burdeiio  v.  Amparso,  U  Mich.  90,  93;  Wakeflelfl  i;.  Phelp.s, 
37  K.  H.  2jo,  :jOi 

2  Ante,  ?  33. 

3  Scammol  v.  Wilkinson,  2  East,  E52,  55.5;  Fitch  v.  Brainrrd,  2 
Day,  10:j,.lt).) ;  discussed  f  ullj'  post,  Wills  of  Mabried  Women,  *«  l^O, 
354. 

4  Bradlsh  v.  Oibbs,  3  Johns.  Ch.  523,  535.  53fi,  540.  See  Kennell  ?•. 
Abbott,  4  Ves.  8U2,  W)3 ;  Douglas  v.  Cooper,  3  Mylne  <fe  IC.  378,  3)il  ; 
Hodsrlt'ii  V.  Llovd,  2  Bro.  C.  C.  540,  514  ;  Morse  v.  Thonipsoa,  4  Cush. 
S62,  5(W  ;  post,  342. 

5  Fitch  V.  Brainerd,  2  Day,  Ifit,  181 ;  Morse  v.  Thompson,  4  Cnsli. 
562,  568  ;  Wakefield  v.  Phelps,  37  X.  U.  295,  301,  302  ;  infra,  notes  10-14. 

6  Scammel  v.  Wilkinson,  2  Kast,  552, 557.    See  post,  ?  342. 

7  Co.  Litt.  112  b;  1  Bish.  M.  W.  ?  37  ;  Hood  v.  Archer,  1  McCord, 
225,  22(!,  477,  478  ;  Newell,  2  McCord,  4X1, 4.>1. 

8  Bradish  v.  Gibbs,  3  Johns.  Ch.  523,  .5.3.5,  536,  540.  See  Kennell  v. 
Abbott,  4  Ves.  802,  8UJ  ;  Morse  v.  Thompson,  4  Cush.  562,  568. 

9  Fitch  V.  Bralnord,  2  Day,  163,  ino ;  Osgood  v.  Breed,  12  Mass. 
525,  530  ;  Morse  v.  Tliompson.  4  Cush.  562,  563 ;  ante,  1 12, 

10  See  Wakefield  ?•.  Phelps,  37  X.  TL.  295, 301,  302 ;  Morse  v.  Thomp- 
son, 4  Cush.  5(i2,  5li7,  dissenting  opinion. 

11  Morse  v.  Thompson,  4  Cush.  502,  567.  Compare  Burdeno  v. 
Amperse,  14  Mich.  !J0,  93. 

12  Ante,  i  4^. 

13  Morse  v.  Thompson,  4  Cush.  562, 565.  See  Wakefield  v.  Phelps, 
37  N.  H.  2d5,  305. 

14  Morse  v.  Thompson,  4  Cush.  562,  56fi.  See  Hood  r.  Archer,  1 
McCord,  225,  226,  477,  47-).     Compare  ante,  i  43,  Jiotes  13,  14,  1.5. 

15  See  Adams  v.  Kellogg,  Kirby,  195;  Sanborn  v.  Batchelder,  51 
N.  11.426,431. 

13  Colo.  C.  L.  1877,  ?  1751 ;  Ames,  33  La.  An.  1317, 1329. 

17  Collins  V.  Carman,  5  Md.  503,  .528. 

IS  Huston  V.  Cone,  24  Ohio  St.  11,  20,  22. 

■  10  Elkctiox  considered  fully  po.s<,  g  27-5. 

20  Wakefleld  v.  Phelps,  C7  X.  II.  2  ).5, 306  ;  ante,  U  22, 36L 

2  51.  Miscellaneous  points  as  to  wills  between  husband 
and  wife.  —  A  man's  will  is  revoked  by  his  subsequent 
marriage  and  the  birth  of  issue,^  unless  it  provides  for 
such  issue  ^  or  issue  by  a  former  marriage.^  A  woman's 
will  is  revoked  by  her  subsequent  marriage  alone,* 
unless  by  statute  she  has  full  i>ower  to  make  a  -will  as  a 
married  woman,'' in  wliich  case  her  will  is  revoked  as  a 
man's  is.^  This  subject  is  not  treated  in  this  article.^ 
A  devise  to  "  1113'  Avifc  "  means,  in  case  of  several  wives, 


§   52  SriTS   BETWEEN    HUSBAND   AND   WIFK.  6S 

the  wife  at  the  time  the  will  was  made  ;8  if  there  was 
no  Avife  at  such  time,  but  the  testator  made  Ms  will  and 
died  just  on  the  eve  of  marriage,  his  intended  "wife 
takes.'  A  devise  to  "my  wife"  is  void  if  the  woman 
had  deceived  the  testator  into  thinking  her  his  wife ;  ^^ 
so  with  a  devisi>  to  "my  husband." '^  Gteneraliy  de- 
mises and  legacies  to  husband  or  wife  are  construed  as 
other  devises  are.** 

1  WpUin?tf>n,  4  Burr.  2ir>5,  2171  ;  Doe  v.  Lancashire,  5  Term  Rep. 
49.  63  ;  Marston  c.  Roe,  8  Ad.  &  E.  14,  55  ;  Hodsden  r.  Llovd,  2  Bro.  C. 
C.  540,  .544  ;  Brush  v.  Wilkins,  4  Johns.  Ch.  506,  510,  512,  516  ;  1  Jarrnan 
M'Uls,  122,  et  seq. 

2  Sfarirtoa  v.  Boe,  8  Art.  &  E.  14,  54  ;  Bmsh  v.  Wilkins,  4  Johns. 
Ch.  506,  510. 

3  Yerby,  3  Call.  2S9, 203. 

4  Forsp  1'.  Hemhliiiff,  4  Rep.  GO,  fil ;  Douglas  v.  Cooper,  3  Mylne 
<fc  K.  37S,  iSl  ;  Hodsdeu  o.  Lloyd,  2  Bro.  C.  C.  540,  5«  ;  ]x>.if,  }  351. 

5  Tuller,  79  lU.  99, 103  ;  :Morton  v.  Onion,  45  Vt.  145, 1.7J. 

6  Tuller,  79  111.  99, 103. 

7  Revocation  of  man's  ■^U  is  not  treated  in  the  volnme  bocanse 
it  does  not  depend  on  marriage, STipro,  n.  1 ;  revocation  of  woman's 
Is  discussed  fully,  iiost,  U  350,  351. 

8  Xeblock  v.  Garratt,  1  Russ.  &  31.  629,  e:o ;  Franks  r.  Erooker,  27 
Beav.  6*5. 

9  SchlQSS  V.  Stiebel,  6  Sim.  1,  5. 

10  M^Ukinson  v.  Joughlin,  Law  R.  2  En.  Sn,  .Tr*. 

11  Kennell  v.  Abbott,  4  Ves.  802,  S03. 

12  Orrick  v.  Boehm,  49  3Id.  72, 101. 

Artici^  V. — Suits.  Between  HirsBANo  and  Wiite. 

5  .52.    Scope  of  this  article. 

{  53.    Suits  under  unwritten  1a.\v. 

I  .54.    Suits  under  statutes. 

}  .55.    Snits  after  dis.soIution  of  marriage. 

}  ''>  a.  Defenses  in  suits. 

I  .5(1.    Testimony  of  husband  or  wife. 

I  52.  Scope  of  tMs  article.  —  Criminal  prosecutions 
are  never  suits  Tx?twoen  husband  and  wife,  and,  except 
so  far  as  concerns  capacity  of  husband  and  wife  to  tes- 
tify in  them,  are  not  discussed  in  this  article.  Snits 
between  husband  and  wife  are  ordinary  suits  at  Uiw  or 


69  SUITS   BETWEEN   HUSBAND   AND   WIFE.  g   53 

in  equity,  in  personam  or  in  rem,  in  contract  or  in  tort, 
sucli  as  are  brought  between  strangers,  which  are  dis- 
cussed in  this  article ;  ^  and  suits  based  upon  the  mar- 
riage relation,  called  matrimonial  suits,  which  are  not 
treated  in  this  volume.^  A  section  on  the  capacitj"-  of 
husband  and  wiie  to  testify  the  one  for  or  against  the 
other  is  inserted  here.* 

1  Posi,  ??  53-56. 

2  Discussed  in  Stewart  JI.  &  D.  \\  122,  nOa,  l.TJ-147,  375,  179,  182, 
193,202-211,  i5;i-390,  •100-407. 

3  Po*M  57. 

2  53.  Sxiits  botwesa  liualiaiid  and  wife  imdar  the  un- 
writton  law. — In  courts  of  law,  independently  of  stat- 
ute,' suits  between  husband  and  wife  are  whollj'' 
unknowTi,^  because  in  such  courts  husband  and  wife 
are  one,*  and  cannot  bo  under  obligation,  tlie  one  to 
the  other,  by  contract,*  or  tort.^  But  courts  of  equity 
which  have  always  recognized  the  separate  existence 
of  husband  and  wife,^  and  have  always  had  special  ju- 
risdiction over  the  pixspcrty  of  married  women,'  enforce 
such  obligations  as  liusband  and  wife  can  reciprocally 
incur,®  and  wliich  cannot  bo  enforced  at  lavi-.'  In  such 
cases  the  ^ofe  is  represented  by  a  next  friend  or  true- 
tee.*"  Thus,  at  law  a  man  cannot  even  confess  judg- 
ment in  favor  of  his  wife ;  '^  but  when  courts  of  law 
and  of  equity  are  combined  ai  in  Pennsylvania,  he 
can.'*  A  wife  cannot  sue  out  a  writ  of  .scire  facias 
against  her  husband  on  a  decree  for  alimonj'.'*  A 
husband  cannot  .sue  his  Avife  at  law  on  a  covenant  to 
pay  rent.'*  One  cannot  sue  the  other  for  assault  and 
batter^'.'*  But  in  courts  of  equity  fair  contracts  on 
proper  consideration,  antenuptial  or  postnuptial,  are  en- 
forced."* So  a  wife  may  in  equity  institute  proceedings 
against  her  husband  for  the  protection  of  her  prop- 
erty;" or  for  a  suitable  provision  out  of  her  choses  in 


§    53  SUITS    BETWEEN    UU.  3AXD    A:>D    WII^E.  70 

action  which  he  is  therein  see]i;ing  to  rcduco  to  posses- 
sion,^® or  to  make  him  account ;  ^^  or  to  have  him  re- 
moved from  a  trust ;  2"  in  socking  to  enjoin  his  creditors 
from  seizhig  her  property  slae  may  make  him  a  pai-ty 
defendant ;  -'  she  may  file  her  claim  against  his  insolv- 
ent estate  ;  '■^^  or  a  bill  against  him  for  partition  ;  ^  or  a 
bill  against  him  for  cancellation  of  a  contract .2*  So  a 
husband  may,  in  equity,  hold  a  wife  responsible  for 
money  of  his  ajJiiropriatod  by  her.^  The  rule  prevent- 
ing suits  at  law  between  husband  and  wife  does  not, 
however,  prevent  ]iim  from  being  made  her  gar- 
nishee,^^ or  an  old  Doe  v.  Roe  ejectment  suit  between 
them.'" 

1  Peters,  42  Iowa,  182, 183  ;  post,  \  54. 

2  See  1  Blackst.  Com.  12) ;  2  Kent  Com.  129  ;  Doe  v.  Daley,  8  Q.  B. 
9»4,  938  ;  Couiilz  r.  MarkliiiK,  ;«  Ark.  17,  24  ;  Chesnnt,  77  111.  M6,  3.51 ; 
Larison,  9  111.  App.  27,  31  ;  Peters,  42  Iowa,  182,  184  ;  Hobb.s,  70  Me.  177, 
132 ;  Barton,  32  Mfl.  214,  224  ;  Jenne  v.  Marble,  37  Mieb.  319,  323  ;  Wal- 
ter, 48  Mo.  140,  14-5:  l.ongendvke,  44  Barb.  3fif!,  3';- ;  I'ittnnn,  4  Orog. 
298,  300  ;  Ros  "  v.  Latsliaw,  90  Pa.  St.  238,  240  ;  Cautrc-Il  v.  Uaviclsoii,  3 
Tenn.  Ch.  420,  4: 0. 

3  White  V.  Wager,  25  X.  Y.  325,  323  ;  ante,  I  38. 

4  Scarborough  v.  Watkiiis,  9  Mon.  B.  540,  545  ;  50  Am.  Dec.  52S ; 
ante,  'i  41. 

5  Libby  v.  Berry,  74  Me.  286,  288  ;  ante,  I  48. 

6  Morrison  v.  Thistle,  67  Mo.  53(i,  COl ;  ante,  U  8,  38,  43. 

7  Bridges  v.  McKenna,  14  Md.  258,  267  ;  ante,  I  42  ;  jnst,  U  1^7-217. 

8  See  ante,  U  -">-l!>- 

9  See  Larison,  9  III.  App.  27,  30,  31 ;  Frazier  v.  White,  49  Md.  1,  7  ; 
Cantrell  v.  Davidson,  3  Tenn.  Ch.  426,  4:» ;  post,  i  54. 

10  Story  Eq.  PI.  ??  61,  63  ;  Barton,  32  Md.  214, 224  ;  Keck  v.  VoUmer, 
29  Md.  507,  511  ;  Bridges  v.  MrlCcnna,  14  Md.  -258,  270 ;  Freethy,  42 
Barb.  641 ;  post,  Suits  of  Makuied  Womex. 

11  Countz  V.  Markling,  30  Ark.  17, 2L 

12  Rose  !'.  Latsbaw,  90  Pa.  St.  238,  240 ;  Lahr,  90  Pa.  St.  .507,  511. 

13  Chesnut,  77  111.  -UC,  350.    Consult  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ?  378. 

14  Jenne  v.  Marble,  37  Mich.  319,  32.3. 

15  Abbott,  67  Me.  304,  306  ;  24  Am.  Rep.  27 ;  ante,  ?  48. 

16  Crane  v.  Gough,  4  Md.  316,  331 ;  Bennett  v.  Winfield,  4  Heisk. 
440,  445  ;  ante,  U  42,  44. 

17  Walter,  48  Mo.  140,  145  ;  Birdges  v.  Phillips,  25  Ala.  136 ;  60  Am- 
Dec.  495 ;  Crabb  v.  Thomas,  25  Ala.  212.    See  post,  i  210. 

18  Wiles,  3  Md.  1,8;  56  Am.  Dec.  733  ;  si-e  post,  H  190-196. 

19  Whitman  r.  Abernathy,  33  Ala.  104, 101. 


71  SUITS   BETWEKN   HUSBAND   AXD   WIFE.  ^   54 

20  Bryan,.^5Ala.  200,  201. 

21  Brirlgc'S  v.  lIcKenna,  U  Md.  25.S,  270. 

22  Oswald  V.  Hoover,  4r,  Md.  360,  3C8. 

23  Moore,  47  N.  Y.  •ir,7,  4<j?i  ;  7  Am.  Rep.  466. 

24  Hardin  v.  Gerard,  10  Bush,  250,  2C1. 

25  Davidson  v.  Smith,  20  Iowa,  46S,  468. 

26  Odenhal  v.  Devlin,  48  Md.  430,  446. 

27  Doe  V.  Daley,  8  Q.  B.  934,  038. 

g  54.  Suits  between  husband  and  wife  under  statutes. — 
Some  statutes  expressly  authorize  suits  between  lius- 
band  and  wife;i  such  statutes  givo  a  remedj-  but  no 
new  right.^  Thus,  a  statute  enabling  a  married  woman 
to  sue  her  husband  does  not  enable  her  to  sue  him  for 
a  jiersonal  injury  to  herself,^  for  that  a  husband  is  not 
liable  to  his  wife  is  not  a  mere  question  of  procedure 
but  of  substantial  right.*  Statutes  authorizing  a  mar- 
ried woman  to  sue  and  be  sued  generally  as  a  femme 
sole  do  not  authorize  suits  by  and  against  her  hus- 
band,^ though  this  rule  is  sometimes  ignored.^  Stat- 
utes authorizing  suits  Avith  her  husband  resjiecting 
proi:)erty  do  not  authorize  such  suits  for  personal  con- 
tracts' or  torts.8  Still,  if  she  has  the  general  power  to 
sue  as  if  unmarried,  she  may  in  all  cases  sue  her  hus- 
band in  equity,®  where  the  unity  of  husband  and  wife 
is  not  regarded.'"  When  a  statute  gives  a  new  remedy 
at  law,  it  does  not  destroy  tlio  old  remed}^  in  equity ; " 
but  if  it  gives  a  new  right,  enforcible  at  law,  such  right 
cannot  be  enforced  in  equit3\i'^  Under  various  statutes 
we  find  a  wife  sviing  her  husband  in  detinue,'^  in  re- 
Ijlevin,'*  and  as  garnishee  ;  '^  and  a  husband  suing  his 
wife  in  trover.'^ 

1  Miss.  R.  S.  1880,  ?  llfiS  ;  Wilson,  36  Cal.  447, 4.54.  As  to  the  various 
statutes,  see  citations,  infra,  and  Hoyd  r.  10iiKland,.56  Ga.  598  ;  .'Vngelo 
1'.  Sentimanat.  33  La.  An.  (UIO  ;  VredcnburKh  r.  Belian,  32  La.  An.  475  ; 
Simmons  v.  Thomas,  43  Miss.  36  ;  5  Am.  Rep.  47<i ;  Adams,  24  Hun, 
401 ;  Rohrman,  12  Phila.  390  ;  Williams,  47  Pa.  St.  .307. 

2  Peters,  42  Iowa,  182, 183. 

3  I,ibby  ;•.  Berry,  74  Me.  286,  288  ;  Peters,  42  Iowa,  182,  183. 


g    55  St'ITS   BETWEEN   HUSBAXD   AND   "WIFE.  72 

4  Phillips  V.  Baniet,  1  Q.  B.  Div.  4:30,  4'iS,  430  ;  Abbott,  fi7  Mp.  3C4, 
30f. ;  24  Am.  lit-p.  27  ;  ante,  \  48. 

5  See  .Smith  v.  Gorman,  41  Me.  4*5.  40S  ;  I.ibby  v.  Berry,  74  5Ie. 
286,  28S  ;  Barton,  32  Md.  214,  '22A  ;  Freethy,  42  Barb.  Wl,  C4.5  ;  ante,  \\  16, 
43,  48. 

6  See  Emerson  v.  Clayton,  32  111.  4!«,  498  ;  ante,  \\  43, 48. 

7  Chesnut,  77  111.  34n,  3.-J0 ;  Jenne  v.  Marble,  37  Mich.  319,  323  ;  Pitt- 
man,  4  Oreg.  298,  300  •  ante,  \  15. 

8  Peters,  42  Iowa,  182, 1S3  ;  Libby  r.  Berry,  74  Me.  286, 288;  ante,  \  15. 

9  Barton,  32  Md.  214,  224. 
10    ^;i(€,  5?  8,38,42,53. 

U  Bridges  v.  McKenna,  14  Md.  2.58, 270. 

12  LarLSOn,  9  111.  App.  27,  .30,  31. 

13  Scott,  13  Ind.  225, 230. 

14  Jones,  19  Iowa,  236, 242 ;  Howland,  20  Hun,  472, 473. 
1.5  Tunks  v.  Grover,  57  -Me.  586,  .V«. 

16    Berdell  v.  Parfchurst,  19  Hun,  .",53,  .360. 

\  55.  Suits  between  husband  and  wifo  after  dissolution  of 
marriage.  —  Death  '  or  absolute  divorce ^  completely  dis- 
solves the  unity  of  husband  and  wofe,  and  removes  the 
disabilities  of  married  women,  so  that  after  death  or 
divorce  there  is  no  incapacity  for  husband  and  wife  to 
sue  each  other.^  But  dissolution  of  marriage  affects 
only  the  remedy ;  it  does  not  revive  or  give  any  sub- 
stantial right.*  Thus  a  note  from  a  man  to  a  woman, 
if  extinguished  by  their  subsequent  marriage,"  cannot 
be  sued  on  after  his  death  ;^  but  if  held  by  her  as  her 
separate  proijerty,"  or  in  a  representative  capacity,^ 
though  during  coverture  she  could  not  sue  on  it  at  all, 
or  only  in  equity  ,9  after  his  death  she  may  enforce  it 
against  his  representatives  at  laWj^"  or  after  her  death 
her  representatives  may  so  enforce  it  against  him." 
So,  as  husband  and  wifo  cannot  be  liable  to  each  other 
in  tort,^-  they  cannot,  even  after  divorce,  sue  each  other 
for  a  wrong  committed  during  coverture;"  but  on 
valid  contracts  between  them  they  can  sue  each  other 
at  law  after  divorce.'' 

1  Stewart  M.  &  D.  \\  452,  460. 

2  Stewart  :M.  cfe  D.  U  •!-".  433,  442,  44S,  449. 


73  SUITS  BETWEEN  HUSBAND  AND  AVIFE.        §§  55  a-56 

3  See  Phillips  ?'.  Barnet,  1  Q.  B.  Div.  43fi,  43n,  440  ;  King  v.  Green,  2 
.Stowt.  133,  135;  Bavi'lson  v.  Smith,  20  Iowa,  466,  4&S  ;  Mitchell,  4 
Mon.  B.  380,  :«1  ;  Abbott,  67  Me.  304,  306 ;  24  Am.  Rep.  27  ;  Blake,  64 
Mo.  177,  IHO,  182  ;  Carleton,  72  Me.  11.5,  116  ;  .39  Am.  Rep.  307 ;  Barton, 
32  Md.  214,  224  ;  Abbott  !•.  Winchester,  ia5  Mass.  115. 

4  Abbott,  67  Me.  331,  SDO,  .301 ;  21  .A.m.  Rep.  27  ;  infra,  n.  3. 

5  Ante,  I  44. 

6  Abbott  V.  Winchester,  10.5  Mass.  115. 

7  Barton,  .32  Mfl.  214,  224  ;  ante,  i  44. 

8  King  V.  Green,  2  Stewt.  133,  Vio ;  19  Am.  Dec.  46  ;  ante,  ?§  41,  44. 

9  Ante,  ?  51. 

10  Barton,  32  Md.  214,  224. 

11  Mitchell,  4  Mon.  B.  380,  381. 

12  Ante,  ??  46,  47. 

13  Phillips  V.  Barnet,  1  Q.  B.  Div.  436,  439  ;  Abbott,  67  Me.  .304,  306, 
303. 

14  Blake,  frl  Me.  177, 182  ;  Carleton,  ?2  Me.  11.5,  116  ;  39  Am.  Rep.  309. 

g  55  a.  Defenses  in  suits  between  husband  and  wife.  ^  — 
The  Statute  of  Limitations  does  not  run  between  hus- 
band and  wife  daring  coverture, ^  although  there  is  a 
remedy  in  equity,^  but  if  they  can  sue  each  other  at  law 
it  does.*  Set-off  may  be  pleaded  in  a  suit  between 
them.5 

1    See  post,  Suits  of  Married  Women'. 
•     2    Lahr,  90  Pa.  St.  .507,  510. 

3  Bowie  V.  Stonestreet,  0  Md.  418, 431. 

4  Consult  po.<t/,  LIMITATION'S. 

5  Greer,  24  Kan.  101,  107. 

?  56.  Testimony  of  husband  and  wife  for  and  against 
each  other.  —  1.  With  certain  exceptions  named  below,  a 
husband  and  wife  could  not  at  common  law  testifj^  the 
one  for  or  against  the  other, i  in  any  legal  proceeding  in 
which  the  other  was  a  partj',-  or  which  involved  the 
other's  pecuniaiy  interests,^  or  criminal  responsibility.* 
This  was  because  (1)  husband  and  wife  are  one,^  and 
as  no  one  could  testify  for  or  against  himself,^  neither 
could  his  wife  testify  for  or  against  him  ;^  (2)  to  allow 
one  to  testify  for  the  other  would  be  to  put  him  or  her 
under  a  great  temptation  to  commit  perjury ;  ^  and  (3) 
H.  &  w. -7. 


g  5G         SUITS  Bi:r\vEi:x  husbaxd  axd  wife.  74 

to  allow  one  to  testify  against  the  other  would  be  to  en- 
danger the  harmony  and  confidence  of  the  marriaga 
relation.^  This  rule  applies  equally  to  husband  and  to 
Avife,^"  but  somewhat  differently  to  criminal  and  civil 
cases.^'  It  is  a  rule  involving  question!  of  public  jiol- 
icy,  and  cannot  be  waived  by  consent  of  partic^.'^  It 
applies  just  as  soon  as  the  parties  are  husband  and  wife, 
though  their  marriage  takes  place  after  one  of  them  is 
summoned  to  testify  ;i3  but  it  does  not  apply  after  dis- 
solution of  the  marriage  by  death,' ■  or  absolute  di- 
vorce,'' except  as  to  facts  learned  as  husband  or  wife  — 
confidential  communications.'®  Nor  does  it  apply  to 
cases  where  no  valid  marriage  erdsts.'"  Various  ques- 
tions arise  as  to  tlie  capacity  of  husband  or  wi.'e  to 
prove  their  marriage,'^  or  to  testify  in  nullity,'"  or 
divorce^  suits.  To  illustrate :  In  an  action  by  a  wo- 
man as  a  feinme  fiole  her  husband  cannot  dofeat  the 
action  by  i^roof  of  their  marriage;^'  a  ■wife  cannot  tes- 
tify in  a  bankrupt cj'  proceeding  against  her  husband ;  ** 
or  in  a  prosecution  against  him  and  others  for  conspir- 
acy even  for  the  others;^  when  one  cannot  testify  the 
other  cannot ;  -*  when  one  can,  tlie  other  can.^  (Statutes 
have  so  far  superseded  the  common  law  that  a  minute 
discussion  of  the  latter  is  omitted.) 

2.  Exceptions.  At  common  law  a  husband  and  wife 
could  testify,  the  one  for  or  against  the  other,  in  prose- 
cutions of  tlie  one  for  criminal  injury  to  the  other,^  as 
for  assault  and  battery, ^'^  rape,^  shooting,^^  forcible 
abduction.^  So,  dying  declarations  of  one  Avho  has 
been  murdered  are  evidence  against  the  other  in  a  trial 
for  such  murder.''  So  the  wfe's  affidavit  is  evidence 
v.'hen  she  exhibits  articles  of  the  peace  against  her  hus- 
band.'2  Declarations  of  one  while  acting  as  agent  for 
the  other  are  admissible.^  So  in  trials  for  treason  t!ie 
one  was  at  one  time  compellable  to  testify  against  the 


75  SUITS    BKTWEEX   HUSBAND    AND    ■\VIFE.  I    58 

other .^*    The  rule  is  not  apijlicablo  to  testimony    in 
wholly  collateral  i>roceeding.s.^5 

3.  Statutes.  The  incajjacity  of  husband  and  wife  to 
testify  for  or  against  each  other  does  not  depend  on 
interest  alone ,^^  but  on  the  relation  of  husband  and 
wife,  the  unity  and  harmony  of  which  it  ■was  thought 
would  be  otherwise  jeopardized.'^  A  statute  enabling 
"all  persons"  to  testify  would  be  construed  not  to 
affect  the  marriage  relation,'*  and  statutes  abolishing 
all  incapacity  from  interest  do  not  change  the  rule  as  to 
testimony  between  liusband  and  Mife.'^  Tliis  rule  must 
be  expressly  changed ;  ^^  a  statute  enabling  the  parties 
litigant  in  any  suit,  and  their  hiishands  and  irives  to  tes- 
tify, does  not  change  the  common-law  rule  as  to  testi- 
mony in  criminal  cases."  But  when  parties  to  suits  are 
enabled  to  testify,  and  husband  and  wife  are  joint  par- 
ties, he  maj''  testify  as  to  his  interest,  and  she  as  to 
hers.*2  When  a  statute  pro\ides  that  all  parties  may 
testify  except  that  husband  and  "wdfe  cannot  in  certain 
cases,  they  can  in  other  cases.^  Many  other  questions 
have  arisen  under  the  statutes  in  the  various  States." 

1  1  Greenl.  Ev.  ??  391,  et  seq.,-  2  Stark  Ev.  pp.  706,  et  seq.;  1  Best 
Ev.  ii  176,  et  seq.;  2  Taylor  Ev.  U  1227,  et  seq.;  1  BlacUst.  Com.  443 ;  2 
Kent  Com.  17i),  ISO  ;  1  Hale  P.  C.  301 ;  Rex  v.  CUvi?Lr,  2  Term,  263 ; 
Eex  V.  Locker,  5  Esp.  107  ;  Stein  v.  Bowman,  13  Peters,  203,  220-22"  ; 
Bank  v.  Mantleville,  1  Cranch  C.  C.  575;  GUleland  v.  Marfm,  3  Mc- 
Lf>an,  490  ;  Wilson  v.  SiK'Ppard,  2S  Ala.  6:3 ;  Pvor  v.  Evburn,  16  Arlc 
671 ;  Dawley  v.  Ayersi,  23  Cal.  MS  ;  Merriam  v.  Hartford,  20  Conn.  3i>i ; 
52  Am.  Dec.  344;  Kemp  v.  Dowham,  5  ir;ir.  (Del.)  417;  Keaton  r. 
M'Givler,24Ga.217;  Waddamsr.  Huniphrc-v,22I11.661 ;  Kvlev.  Frost, 
29  Ind.  3:)3 ;  Karney  v.  PalsL  \-,  13  Iowa,  S3  ;"lIifr-lon,  6  Slarsh.  J.  J.  4.^; 
23  Am.  Dec.  84 ;  Smead  v.  WiUiamson,  16  Mon.  15.  4  2  ;  TuUev  i..  Alex- 
ander, U  La.  An.  623;  Dwell v,  46  3Ie.  377;  Bradfijrd  v.  WUllams,  2 
Md.  Co.  1;  Griffin  v.  Brown,  2  Piok.  301 ;  State  v.  Armstrong,  4  Mini'.. 
S:^;  Moore  V.  McKJe,  13  Miss.  2:is;  Tomllnson  v.  Lvach,  32  Mo.  160; 
Craig  V.  Kittrei'.se,  20  N.  H.  109  ;  Kelley  v.  Proctor,  41  >'.  H.  139;  Dc.i 
V.  Johnson,  18  X.  J.  L.  87;  White  v.  Stafford,  33  Baib.  419  ;  Eice  r. 
Kci;h,63  N.  C.  310  ;  Bird  v.  Hueston,  10  Ohio  St.  418  ;  Gross  v.  Eeddv, 
45  Pa.  St.  406  ;  Donnelly  v.  Smith,  7  B.  L 12 ;  Footman  r.  Pendergrass, 
2  Strob.  Eq.  317  ;  Kimbrough  v.  Mitchell,  1  Head,  5o!) ;  Gee  v.  Scott,  48 
Tox.  510,  513 ;  26  Am.  Rep.  311 ;  Cameron  v.  Fay,  55  Tex.  53  ;  Barnv  v. 
Rood,  1  Hon.  &  M.  1>1 ;  Jlanchester,  24  VL  649  ;  Farrell  v.  LadweU,  21 
Wis.  182  ;  Zane  v.  Fink,  18  W.  Va.  693. 

2  See  Bentley  v.  Cook,  2  Term,  26.5, 269 ;  Higdon,  6  Marsh.  J.  J.  48  ; 
22  Am.  Dec.  84 ;  Bird  v.  Davis,  14  JS'.  J.  Eq.  467 


§    &6  SUITS   BETWEEN    HUSBAND   AND   WIFE.  76 

3  See  Labareei'.  Wood,  MVt.  452,  453, 454;  Cobb  I'.Edmoiulsoii, 30 
Ga.  30  ;  Pyie  v.  Maukliiig,  7  JMarsh.  J.  J.  202 

4  Common  w.  v.  Easland,  1  Mass.  15 ;  Den  v.  Jonnson,  13  N.  J.  L. 
87,  VJ,  100. 

5  Wyndham  v.  Chetwyiide,  1  Burr.  424  ;  Coke  Lltt.  6  6;  ante,  J  38. 

6  1  Greenl.  Ev.  ^  329 ;  1  Best  Ev.  J  168,  note  cases  and  statutes  col- 
lected. 

7  Turner  v.  State,  50  Miss.  3ol,  354  ;  infra,  n.  9  ;  supra,  n.  L 

8  Davis  V.  Diu woody,  4  Term,  673,  679  ;  infra,  n.  9. 

9  Alcock,  12  Eng:.  L.  &  Eq.  354,  35.5 ;  Stapleton  v.  Crofts,  18  Ad.  <t 
:E.  X.  B.  3G7, '303;  Lucas  V.  Broo'.:s,  18  Wiill.  4:^,  452;  Mitcbinsi)ii  v. 
Cross,  58  IlL  "366,  3C9 ;  Blake  v.  Graves,  IS  Iowa,  312,  317;  Tullv  v. 
Alexander,  11  La.  An.  623 ;  DeveUy,  46  Me.  377,  3  9  ;  :McKeen  v.  Frost, 
46  Me.  2i<),  248,  2"0;  Bradford  v.  Williams,  2  3rd.  C'U.  1,2;  Kcllv  v. 
Drew,  12  Allen,  107. 10) ;  Dunlap  v.  Hearn,  37  Miss.  471,  474  ;  Turner  v. 
State,  50  Miss.  351,  354 ;  You!^.g  v.  Oilman,  46  N.  H.  4^4,  4S3 ;  Den 
i'.  Johnson,  18  N.  J.  L.  87, 98  ;  Marsh  v.  Potter,  30  Barb.  506,  503  ;  Gib- 
s  y.i  V.  Commonw.  87  Pa.  St.  2.53,  2.5f! ;  State  t'.  Workman,  15  8.  C.  MO, 
515  ;  Gee  i\  S-ott,  48  Tc  \-.  5'.0,  514,  515  ;  26  Am.  Rep.  331 ;  Cram,  33  Vt. 
15,  20 ;  Manchester,  24  Vt.  643,  650. 

10    Rex  V.  Sergeant,  1  Ryan  <fc  31.  3.52,  ZM. 
li.    See  Turpin  j'.  State,  55  Md.  462,  475-:77. 

12  Stein  v.  BoWman,  13  Peters,  209,  223 ;  Turner  v.  Stp.te,  50  Miss. 
&51,  3.54;  Unnd;:!!,  5  City  Ilnll  Rec.  Ill,  1.53,  154;  1  Greonl.  Ev.  ?  ^0. 
As  to  statute,  see  Jordan  v.  Henderson,  19  Iowa,  335. 

13  Pedley  v.  Wellesley,  3  Car.  &  P.  553,  559. 

14  Stewart  M.  &.  D.  {  470. 

15  Stewart  M.  &  D.  I  439. 

IS  Stein  V.  Bowman,  13  Peter.-?,  201,  223  ;  Ames,  33  La.  An.  1317, 1.327; 
State  V.  Jolly,  3  Dev.  &  B.  Eq.  110,  112  ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  |J  4.39,  479. 

17  Stewart  JL  &  D.  ?§  68,  n.  14,  i;3,  3;;). 

18  Stewart  :M.  &  D.  U  1"3,  3^0,  S."'l. 

19  Stewart  M.  <fe  D.  ??  66,'  1."-^ 

20  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ?  353. 

21  Bentley  v.  Cooke,  3  I)ou:r.  422 ;  cited  2  Term,  235,  2r.9. 

22  James,  1  P.  Wms.  610,  611. 

23  State  V.  Workman,  15  S.  C.  540,  54;).  As  to  civil  suits,  see  Mercer 
II.  Patterson,  41  lud.  440  ;  Stewart,  41  'Wis.  624. 

24  Berry  v.  Stevens,  69  Me.  290,  29.3. 

25  DufTm  v.  State,  11  Tex.  App,  76,  79. 

26  Bentley  v.  Cooke,  3  Doug.  422;  Wakefield,  2  Low.  C.  C.  237; 
Stein  V.  Bowman,  l.l  Peters,  209, 221  ;  State  v.  Neil,  6  Ala.  6.S5  ;  Good- 
win V.  State,  60  Ga.  50J  ;  State  v.  Bennett,  31  Iowa,  24  ;  State  v.  Dver, 
59  Me.  303  ;  Turner  v.  State,  50  Miss.  351,  454  ;  People  v.  Chegarav,  18 
Wend.  642 ;  State  v.  Parrott,  79  N.  C.  615  ;  Whlpp  v.  State,  aj  Ohio  St. 
87,  89,  91  ;  32  Am.  Rep.  3.59. 

27  Whipp  V.  State,  M  Ohio  St.  87, 89,  91 ;  32  Am.  Rep.  a59. 

28  Audley,  3  How.  St.  Tr.  402, 413  ;  Hut.  115,  116. 

29  Whitehouse,  cited  2  Russ.  Crimes,  606. 

30  1  East  s  P.  C.  454  ;  1  Greenl.  Ev.  J  ^3. 


77  SUITS   BETWEBX   HUSBAND   AND   WIFE.  ?   56 

31  Rex  V.  Woodcock,  2  Leach,  5G3 ;  Stoop,  Addis.  381 ;  People  ?'. 
Green,  1  Denio,  614  ;  State  v.  Belcher,  13  S.  C.  -loO. 

32  Bex  V.  Dohert}-,  13  East,  171 ;  Rex  v.  Mead,  1  Burr  542 ;  Rex  v. 
Ferrers,  1  Burr,  c:^;  Lawley,  Bull  N.  1*.  2i~. 

33  See  Robertson  v.  Brost,  83  111.  IIG  ;  Smied  v.  Frank,  86  Ind.  250, 
2d7 ;  Bradford  v.  Williams,  2  Md.  c;i.  1, 3 ;  Cliesloy,  51  Mo.  347 ;  Thomas 
V.  Harsrave,  Wright,  5').%  5;;6;  GIbsiO!i,  16  Vt.  4!'.l ;  Town  v.  Lamphire, 
37  Vt.  .52, 57  ;  Lunay  v.  Vantyne,  40  Vt.  501,  503;  Birdsall  v.  Dunn,  16 
Wis.  235,  211 ;  ATvAt  v.  Harshaw,  53  Wis.  269.  But  see  Watkins  v. 
Turner,  M  Ark.  663;  Roblson,  44  Ala.  227. 

U    1  Greenl.  Ev.  5  34,5. 

35  Rex  V.  Eathwick,  2  Barn.  &  Ad.  639, 647.  See  Lincoln  it.  Madans, 
102  III.  417, 4:0 ;  Griixin  v.  Brown,  2  Pick.  3U3  ;  Fitch  v.  Hill,  11  Mass. 
286 ;  Den  v.  Johnson,  18  N.  J.  Eq.  87,  03 ;  Baring  v.  Reeder,  1  Hen.  & 
M.  154, 168 ;  1  GreenL  Ev.  i  S^2. 

36  Gee  V.  Scott,  48  Tex.  510,  514,  5V> ;  23  Am.  Rep.  3:51 ;  mpra,  n.  9  ; 
infra,  n.  39. 

37  Lucas  v.  Brooks,  13  W\all.  436, 452  ;  supra,  n.  9  ;  infra,  n.  S3. 

38  Ante,  i  12  ;  infra,  ru  3!) ;  consult,  ante,  U  11-18,  Const  ruction. 

39  Stapleton  i-.  Crofts.  18  Ad.  &  E.  N.  S.  3fi7,  369  ;  Alcock,  12  E;:g.  L. 
&  Eq.  3.i4,  355  ;  Lucas  v.  Broo'rs,  18  Wr.ll.  4Z6,  452  ;  Jones,  6  r.iss.  63,  6  1 ; 
Sumner  v.  Cook,  51  Ala,  521;  Lincoln  v.  M.aUans,  102  111.  417,  421  ; 
Mitchinson  v.  Goss,  58  111.  3CS,  33^ ;  Russ  v.  Steamboat,  14  Iowa,  Z(i\ 
S74;  McKcen  v  Frost,  46  JIo.  2::9,  2:^,  2:3;  Dwelly,  46  Me.  377,  380; 
Turpin  V.  State,  55  :Md.  402, 477  ;  Peaclee  v.  ZTcLoon,  16  Gray,  483,  48J  ; 
Kelly  V.  Drew,  12  Allen,  107, 101 ;  Anon.  58  Mi",s.  15,  IS  ;  Byrd  v.  Stato, 
.57  Miss.  2^3;  34  Am.  R'^p.  4-:o ;  Dunlap  v.  Il'arn,  37  Miss.  471,  47-1; 
Young  V.  Gaman,46N.  II.  484,436;  Corson,  U  N.  II.  6'i7,!^'i;  Longen- 
dy;:e,44Barb.  305,  3GS  ;  S  hultzv.  State,  32  Ohio  St.  276,  2o0 ;  Gi'json  v. 
Commonw.  87  Pa.  St.  2ry.\  256 ;  St;ite  v.  Workmr.n,  15  S.  C.  540,  .5^0 ; 
.StaiTnrd,  41  Tex.  111,113;  Gee  v.  Scott,  48  Tex.  510,514;  26  Am.  Rop. 
331;  Crane,R3Vt.  15, 2J;  Mr.nchost-r,  21  Vt.6;'),  6:3.  But  see  Merriam 
V.  Hartford,  20  Conn.  2:^,  303  ;  Berlin,  52  JIo.  151, 153. 

40  Bee  Turpin  v.  State,  55  Md-  432,  477  ;  Pillow  v.  Eushnell,  5  Barb. 
151),  157 ;  gupra,  n.  3X 

41  Turpin  V.  Stato,  53  Md.  432,  477,  473;  Wilke  v.  People,  53  N.  Y. 
525;  Steen  v.  State,  20  Ohio  St.  Zti. 

42  See  Klmk  v.  Xoble,  37  Ark.  233,  302 ;  Hawver,  78  lU.  412 ;  Clouse 
V.  Elliott,  71  Ind.  302  ;  3Iousl-r  v.  llardintr,  33  Ind.  176;  5  Am.  Rep. 
1J5;  IX)ckwood  v.  Joab,  27  I^'.d.  423, 424  ;  Allxiugh  v.  James,  29  Ind.  3  3, 
309  ;  M:ir?h  v.  Potter,  30  B.".rb.  503,  Z-:i  ;  Pillow  v.  Bushnoll,  5  B^rb.  i:3, 
167 ;  Duval  V.  Davey,  32  Ohio  St.  C34  ;  Kaime  v.  Ormo,  43  V.'is.  371. 

43  See  Minier,  4  Lans.  421, 425. 

44  See  Bobinison,  44  Ala.  227;  Steinburg  v.  Meaney,  53  Cal.  425; 
Porter  v.  Allen,  54  Ga.  623  ;  Haves  v.  Pamaloe,  79  111.  5J3  ;  R -eves  v. 
Ilerr,  59  111.81;  Stanton,  36  Ind.  445;  Bunker  v.  Bonnctt,  1C3  Mass. 
.'>16;  Haerle  v.  Kroihn,  65  Mo.  202;  Parsons  v.  People,  21  Mich.  50.T; 
People  V.  R^agle,  60  Barb.  527 ;  Waike  v.  People,  53  N.  Y.  525  ;  State  v. 
Brown,  67  N.  C.  470;  Steen  v.  State,  20  Ohio  St.  333;  Musser  v.  Gard- 
ner, 66  Pa.  St.  242;  Craig  v.  Brendol,  69  Pa.  St.  1.'3;  Ballentine  v. 
White,  77  Pa.  St.  20;  Overton  v.  Stat-^,  43  T'X.  615;  Carpenter  v. 
Moore,  43  Vt.  392  ;  Y.'hlte  v.  Perry,  14  Yv'.  \a,  03  ;  Menk  v.  Steinfort, 
39  Wis,  270, 


§    67  CONJUGAL.    KIGSHTS    AND    OBLIOATIONS.  78 

CHAPTER  IV. 

CONJUGAIi   RIGHTS   AND   OBLIGATIONS. 

Art  I.    The  Several,  Conjugal  Rights  and  Obli- 
gations, ^^  57-71. 
II.    Actions   Arising    from    Conjugal  Rights 
and  Obligations,  §§  72-81. 

Art.  I.  —  The  Several  Conjugal  Righi-s  an i>  Obli- 
gations. 

I  57.  ConJH^l  rights  and  obligations  defined. 

I  58.  Bisht  of  lovo,  honor,  etc. 

J  59.  Right  of  matrimonial  cohabitation  and  Intorconrse. 

5  60.  Right  to  fix  family  homo,  and  regulate  household. 

{  CL  Right  to  use  family  name. 

5  02.  Right  of  personal  custody  and  restraint 

{  01  Right  of  personal  chastisement. 

{  04.  Right  of  support. 

{  65.  Right  to  personal  scrs-lcos. 

}  06.  Liability  in  tort. 

I  07.  Liability  in  contract. 

{  G3.  Liability  in  crime. 

{  03.  Other  personal  rights  and  liabilff  fes. 

{  70.  Property  rights  and  liabilities. 

{  71.  Rights  and  obligations  as  to  children. 

I  57.  Conjugal  rights  and  obligations  defined.  —  Conju- 
gal rights  and  obligations  are  those  wliich  attacli  to  one 
as  husband  or  as  unfe.^  They  include  not  only  tho 
rights  and  obligations  of  husband  and  A\ife  towards 
each  other — such  as  the  right  of  cohabitation  ^  and  tho 
obligation  to  support  ;^  but  also  their  rights  and  obliga- 
tions toward  third  parties  —  such  as  the  husband's  ric:ht 
to  recover  for  injuries  to  his  Avife*  and  his  oblicjation  to 
make  good  damage  done  l3y  her.^  A  discussion  of  con- 
jugal riglits  and  obligations  therefore  includes  (1)  hus- 
band  and  wife's   mutual    rights   and  obligations  of 


79  CONJUGAL,   RIGHTS   AND   OBLIGATIONS.  ?    ^^ 

affection,  cohabitation,  and  support ;  the  husband's 
right  to  fix  tlie  phice  of  residence,  and  liis  riglit  to 
restrain  and  cliastise  his  wife ;  the  wi'o's  right  to  use 
licr  liusband's  name ;  their  other  riglits  over  eacli 
other's  persons  and  their  respective  rights  in  each 
other's  property  ;  tlie  rights  and  obligations  of  the  one 
arising  out  of  tlie  torts,  crimes,  or  contracts  of  tlie 
other .s  (2)  Actions  which  may  arise  between  the  hus- 
band and  wife  or  with  third  parties  out  of  conjugal 
rights  and  obligations.'' 

1  This  definition  seems  broader  perliaps  tUun  usage  sanctions, 
but  it  is  adopted  for  conveuience. 

2  Post,  ?  59. 

3  Post,  U  <^>  65. 
■J    Post,  ?  77. 

5  PcU,iG6. 

6  Post,  l\  58-7L 

7  i'oif,  ??  72-8U 

I  58.  Conjugal  right  of  love,  honor,  etc. — A  marriage 
is  valid,  though  entered  into  by  parties  who  care  noth- 
ing for  each  other,^  and  after  their  marriage  the  law 
does  not  deal  with  the  mutual  feelings  of  husband  and 
wife,  except  so  far  as  these  manifest  themselves  in  con- 
duct, and  then  only  if  the  conduct  talccs  the  form  of 
cruelty,  desertion,*  or  some  other  cause  for  divorce.* 
Therefore  when  a  court  says  a  wife  is  "bound  to  love, 
honor,  and  obey  her  husband," ^  it  is  speaking  senti- 
mentally.*'  In  one  case,  however,  loving  treatment 
seems  to  be  a  legal  right :  a  spouse  who  has  been  for- 
given a  marriage  offense  must  treat  his  wife  or  her  hus- 
band with  "conjugal  kindness,"  or  the  offense  will  be 
revived.''  And  alienation  of  affection  is  one  of  tho 
grounds  of  damage  in  a  suit  for  criminal  conversation.^ 

1  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ?  -16. 

2  Stewart  51.  &T>.U  '-Gl-^rs. 

3  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ??  2-;:)-:00. 

4  Stewart  M.  &  D.  U  173,  201. 


§  59  CON  JUG  AL   RIGHTS   AXB   OBLIGATIONS.  80 

5  Martin  v.  Robson,  65  III.  120, 133.    See  Cal.  Civ.  Code,  J  l.>5. 

6  See  1  Bish.  JI.  W.  |  4:>X 

7  Durant,  1  Hagg.  Ecc.  733;  3  Kng.  Ecc.  310,  320,  33.5:  Stewart 
M.  &  D.  I  30J. 

8  Yundt  V.  Hartranft,  41  111.  9, 17  ;  jiost,  ?  70. 

g  59.  Conjugal  ri^lit  to  cohabitation  and  intorcourse, — 
The  legal  condi^ions  under  which  man  and  ■\voinan 
may  lawfully  cohabit  and  have  legi'amate  children 
constitute  marriage,^  The  law  not  only  presumes  that 
husband  and  wife  have  a  common  homo,^  but,  often, 
that  a  man  and  woman  who  have  a  common  home  are 
husband  and  wife.*  If  husband  and  Avife  do  live  apart 
their  status  or  legal  condition  Ls  abnonnal.* 

1.  Cohabitation  is  in  fact  a  conjugal  riglit ;»  the  hus- 
band has  a  right  to  the  wife's,^  and  the  wife  to  the  hus- 
band's, company;'  a  husband's  agreement  to  pay  his 
wife  for  living  with  him  is  Avitliout  consideration  ;8  and 
each  has  a  right  to  enter  the  family  residence,'  which- 
ever OAvns  it.'"  It  13  not  a  right,  however,  which  in  the 
United  States  can  be  specifically  cn'orced  ; "  but  if  it  is 
intentionally  infringed  for  a  spocillod  time  it  is  gener- 
ally, by  statute  as  desertion,  a  cause  for  divorce,'^  and 
so  if  it  is  broken  up  by  imprisonment,  this  is  in  .some 
States  a  cause  for  divorce ; "  so  if  the  wife  wrongfully 
leaves  her  hvisband  .she  forfeits  her  right  to  support, i* 
a3  by  deserting  her  he  forfeits  his  right  to  her  ser- 
vices ;  '5  so  if  the  husband  renounces  cohabitation 
altogether  by  leaving  the  State  for  good,  the  wife 
bocomes  to  some  extent  afemme  .sc'r,'"  I*  a  third  party 
interferes  with  this  right  by  separating  one  spoiir.o  from 
the  other,  the  wronged  spouse  may  sue  such  party  for 
damages.'^  This  right  may  bo  waived  by  consent, '^  as 
r.\  a  deed  of  separation  ;i9  it  i.^  forfeited  by  conduct 
entitling  the  other  party  to  a  divorce,^''  and  perhaps,  by 
other  outrageous  and  indecent  conduct ; "'  and  it  is  sus- 
pended during  divorce  proceedings.22 


81  CO>'JUGAL   KIGKTS   AND   OBLIGATIO>-S.  g  59 

2.  Matrimonial  cohabitation  involves  sexual  inter- 
course, since  the  production  of  children  i.^  preruunably 
contemplated  by  those  who  marry ;  '^  and  from  such 
cohabitation  sexual  intercourse  is  implied.^*  So  sexual 
int^i course  is  a  conju.::ral  right.^  If  owing  to  &omo 
p!iysical  or  psycliic  defect  in  one  of  the  parties  to  a 
marriage  the  enjoyment  of  this  right  is  permanenth' 
ir.ipossible,  the  marriage  may  be  avoided.^^  But  the 
mere  denial  of  this  riglit  does  not  work  a  forfeiture  of 
any  other  conjugal  right, ^'  and  is  not  cruelty-^  or  deser- 
tion,'-'^ tliougli  it  maybe  an  indignity  ,^°  and  accompany- 
ing an  offer  to  resume  cohabitation,  may  render  such 
an  olfcr  of  no  effect ;  ^'-  nor  does  it  justify  seiJaration.^^ 
The  excessive  indulgence  in  this  right  bj^  one  party  to 
the  injury  of  the  other's  healtli,^^  or  the  insisting  upon 
it  wlien  the  otlier  is  delicate,  weak,  or  ill,^*  or  by  one 
who  has  a  venereal  disease,^^  is  crueltj^,  and  justifies 
soparation,^'^  or  a  suit  for  divorce.^'  This  right  is  waived 
or  foi'feited  Avilh  the  right  of  a  cohabitation.^^  Xot  only 
have  husband  and  wife  thus,  the  I'iglit  of  mutual  inter- 
course, but  eacli  has  the  right  that  tlie  other  shall 
indulge  in  such  intercourse  Avith  no  one  else,  and  in 
case  of  such  indulgence  tlie  wronged  party  may  obtain 
a  divorce  for  adultery,^^  or  sue  the  third  party  for 
criminal  conversation,^"  or  if  he  catches  such  third 
party  in  the  act  kill  him  and  be  guilty  onty  of  man- 
slaughter." 

1  Stewart  M.  &  J).  H  1, 17. 

2  Firohrafp,  Law  R.  4  P.  &.  D.  fi3,  (57 ;  Hanberry,  21  Ala.  ri"*  724; 
Davis,  ;iO  III.  ISO;  Sanderson  v.  Kalston, 'JdT.a.  An.  .312,  315,  :<'-'0;  (Vreeiie, 
n  I»k-k.  41(1, -ll.i  ;  Ilackettstown  r.  Mitclidl,  2s  N.  J.  I..  .51(1,  SIS  ;  Wil- 
borus  ('.  Saunders,  5  Cold.  60,  70  ;  .Stewart  il.  &  D.  J?  221,  25:> ;  poxt,  i  60. 

3  Commonw.  v.  Hurler,  14  Gray,  411. 412 ;  Badger,  SS  X.  T.  54(i.  As 
to  proof  of  marriage  by  cohabitation :  See  Stewart  M.  &  D.  UVCS., 
135,  136. 

4  English,  27  N.  J.  Eq.  .579,  581 ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ?  173. 

5  Anon.  Deane  &  S.  205,  2ns,  .SOO  ;  Price,  2  Fost.  &  F.  263,  264  ; 
Barnes  v.  Allen,  30  Barb.  66J,  66.* ;  Westlake,  ".4  Olilo  «t.  621,  6-S  ;  32 


I  69  COXJUGAL   RIGHTS   AND   OBLIGATIONS.  82 

Am.  Rep.  397 ;  ICimines  v.  Smith,  33  Tex.  4J,  52  ;  Stewart  M.  &  D. 
«175. 

6  Ximines  v.  Smith,  39  Tex.  49,  52  ;  post,  5  78. 

7  Clark  v.  Harlan,  1  Cin.  Rep.  •IIS,  422  ;  post,  \  78. 

8  Robert  v.  Frisby,  .38  Tex.  219,  220. 

9  See  Rex  »-.  Gould,  2  East  P.  C.  &M ;  Cal.  Civ.  Code,  \  1.57  ;  Com- 
monw.  V.  Hartnett,  3  Gray,  450, 452  ;  Snyder  v.  People,  26  M.ich.  106, 
108,  110  ;  12  Am.  Rep.  30. 

10    See  Walker  v.  Reamy,  36  Pa.  St.  410,  414,  416. 
n    Baugh,  Si  Mich.  53,  62  ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ?  175. 

12  See  "  Desertion  "  discussed  in  Stewart  51.  ck  D.  \\  178, 249,269. 

13  Handy,  124  Mass.  .3!M,  3!t.5.  See  Revised  Laws  of  Ala,.  .\rk.,  Cal., 
Colo.,  C^otin.,  Del.,  Ga.,  111.,  Ind.,  Iowa,  Kan.,  Kv.,  La.,  Mass.,  Mich., 
Minn.,  Miss.,  Mo.,  Neb.,  Nev.,  N.  H.,  Ohio,  Oreg.,  Pa..  Tenn.,  Tex., 
Va.,  V't.,  Wash.,  W.  Va.,  \Vi.s.,  cited  Stewart  M.  &  D.  J  288. 

14  Schindel,  12  Md.  2!M,  314  ;  post,  \  64. 

15  Reese  v.  Waters,  it  Watts,  90,  94  ;  post,  i  65. 

16  Gregory  v.  Pierce,  4  Met.  478,  479,  cases  collected ;  Stewart  M.  & 
D.  J  177. 

17  Barnes  v.  Allen,  30  Barb.  663,  668  ;  Westlake,  .34  Ohio  St.  621,  628  ; 
32  Xm.  Rep.  397 ;  post,  I  78. 

18  Gray,  15  A  la.  779, 784.  78.5  ;  Benkert,  32  Cal.  467,  470  ;  Cox,  Xi  Mich. 
461,  463  ;  Stewail  M.  &  D.  i  256. 

19  Walker,  9  Wall.  743,  750,  cases  cited  ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  J?  182-191. 

20  Grove,  37  Pa.  St.  443,  447  ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  l\  175,  257. 

21  See  Lvster,  HI  Mass.  327  ;  CornLsh,  23  X.  J.,Kq.  208,  209  ;  Stewart 
M.  &  D.  J  287. 

22  Burns,  60  Ind.  2.59,  260  ;  Harper,  29  Mo.  .''01,  3a3 ;  Stewart  M.  &  D. 
??  :»8,  311,3S4,  410.  Of  course  divorce  destroys  it:  Stewart  M.  <fe  D. 
14:55. 

23  Discussed  In  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ??  1, 17, 63, 103,  104, 173. 

24  Burns,  60  Ind.  259,  260  ;  Harper,  29  Mo.  301,  303 ;  fetewart  M.  &  D. 
\\  308,  3U,  3S4,  410. 

25  See  Orme,  2  Add.  Kc.  R.  382;  2  Eng.  Ecc.  .^>^,  356;  Forster,  1 
Hagg.  Const.  144,  l.>4 ;  4  Ens:.  Ecc.  :J63,  MW  ;  D'.Vguilar,  1  Hagg.  Ecc. 
776;  Shaw,  17  Conn.  l.Hii,  I;/(i  ;  Steele,  1  Mi.Vr.  ii0.'>.  iKKi ;  (iibhs,  18  Kan. 
419,  422,  42);  Fishli,  2  Litt.  :us,  :ui  ;  S()iith\vi<-ks,  !i7  Ma.ss.  :<27,  328,  329 ; 
Cowles,  112  Ma,ss.  29s;  Canticld,  :u  Miili.  .■)7!i ;  M-lvin,  5s  N.  H.  .V.9. 
571  ;  Cook,  ;«  N.  J.  Eq.  47.5,  479;  English,  27  N.  J.  Eq.  71,  74,  579;  Reid, 
21  N.  .1.  Eq.  331,  ;$32,  XX-i ;  Coble,  2  .lones  Eq.  392,  .3!M  ;  Gordon, 48  Pa.  St. 
226,  228 ;  Eshback,  23  Pa.  St.  343,  :?45  ;  Magill,  3  Pittsb.  Rep.  25. 

26  "  Impotence  "  discussed,  Stewart  M.  &  D.  J§  61,  67. 

27  Potier  r.  Barclay,  15  Ala.  437,  431;  Cowles,  112  Mass.  298;  Gor- 
don, 48  Pa.  St.  226,  228.     Contra,  Cal.  Civ.  Code,  {  !)6. 

28  Cowles,  112  Mass.  298  ;  Eshbach,  22  Pa.  St,  843,  845  ;  Stewart 
M.  &  D.  J  269.     Contra,  Cal.  Civ.  Code.  J  96. 

29  Southwlck,  97  Mass.  327,  329  ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ?  2.52. 

30  Coble,  2  Jones  Eq.  392,  395 ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ^  282. 

31  Fishli,  2  Litt.  338,  :i41. 

32  Raid,  21  K.  J.  Eq.  331,  333 ;  Eshbach,  23  Pa.  St.  343,  *4.5. 


83  CONJUGAL  HIGHTS  A_ND  OBLIGATIONS.  g  60 

a-;    Melvln,  58  N.  H.  569,  571. 

34    Shaw,  17  Conn.  ISO,  i;)G ;  English,  29  N.  J.  Eq.  71,  74,  79. 

:«  N.  3  .Swab.  &  T.  2:M,  2:n  ;  CanfleUl,  14  Mich.  51!»;  Holthoeffer,  47 
Mich.  2.5),  2bO;  Cook,  32  N.  J.  Eq.  47.5,  477;  Long,  2  Hawks,  189,  192; 
Stewart  M.  &  D.  J  2.59. 

30    HeslcT,  Wrisrht,  210,  211 :  Stewart  11.  &  D.  ?  259. 

37  "  Cruelty  "  as  a  causo  for  divorce  discussed  :  Stewai  M.  <&  D. 
ii  261,  27:!. 

38  Supra,  notes  18-22. 

aa  "  Adultery  "  as  a  causp  for  dlvotcfi  dUCUSsed  :  Stewart  M.  <fc  ti. 
ii  241-248. 

40  Yundt  V.  Hartranft,  41  111.  9, 10. 

41  Rex  J'.  K"Ilv,  Car.  <t  K.  814;  State  v.  Holme,  M  Mo.  15.3,  166; 
Sluifflii  ('.  Pe(,ple,  62  N.  V.  220.  2:i5  ;  20  Am.  Rep  483;  .State  v,  Har- 
miin,  78  N.  C.  515,  518  ;  .Stat.'  v.  Neville,  6  Jones,  4.33;  Desty  Crim.  L. 
{  128,  n.  i ;  2  Bish.  Crlm.  L.  J  038. 

§  60,  Conjugal  right  to  fix  the  family  home  and  regu- 
late the  household.  —  The  wife  by  marriage  i.s  merged  in 
the  husband  ; '  the  husband  i.s  the  "  head  of  tlio  wife  "  ;  '^ 
she  is  sub  jirotestate  viri ;^  ho  may  to  some  degree 
restrain^  or  punish'  her,  so  much  is  she  under  his  con- 
trol, that  by  the  common  law  any  wrong  done  by  her 
in  his  presence  is  considered  as  his  sole  deed,^  and 
under  early  enabling  acts  she  was  required  to  acknowl- 
edge her  conveyances  out  of  his  presence.^  So  the  bus- 
band's  rights  over  the  children  are  paramount.*  He 
is  thus  tlie  liead  of  the  family.'  He  decides  where  the 
family  residence  shall  be,'**  and  may  change  it  as  often 
as  his  pleasure,  health,  or  business  dictates  ; "  and  his 
wife  must  live  where  he  directs,^''  as  long  as  he  acts  in 
good  faith, *3  in  spite  of  an  antenuptial  agreement  to  the 
contrary  ;"  but  she  luxi  a  right  to  live  with  him,^^  and 
he  cannot  banish  her  to  a  lonely  place  for  punish- 
ment ;  ^^  nor  can  he  thus  endanger  her  healtli ;  i'  nor 
perliaps  can  he  remove  her  from  her  native  land,'^  or 
make  her  live  with  his  relations. '^  As  a  result  a  hus- 
band's domicile  is  usually  the  place  where  he  has 
established  his  family,^  althougli  during  his  absence 
his  wife  has  moved  ; "  and  the  wife's  domicile,  except 


I  60  CONJUGAL  KIGIITS  AND  OBLIGATIONS.  84 

in  certain  cases  where  she  has  a  sejiarate  domicile  for 
divorce, '■'^  is  that  of  lier  husband. "^  So  the  husband 
may  decide  who  shall  visit  the  family  residence,'^  and 
may  prevent  its  being  used  for  purposes  of  prostitu- 
tion ^^  or  illegal  liquor  selling,^'*  al'. hough  it  belongs  to 
the  wife ;  ^^  for  s*:atutes  relating  to  married  women  do 
not  remove  the  husband  from  his  place  as  head  of  the 
family.'^*  When  the  husband  Li  insane  the  wife  L«  head 
of  the  family  ^  so  she  is  when  he  i-s  absent.*" 

1  Ante,  §  38. 

2  Todd,  15  Ala.  743,  'U  ;  Boozer  v.  Addison,  2  Rich.  Kq.  27."?,  275. 

3  Allen  v.  Hooper,  50  Me.  £71,  372  ;  Eurdono  v.  Ampcrse,  14  Jlich. 
90,95. 

4  Price,  2  Fost.  *  F.  263,  2ai ;  pist,  J  02. 

5  Rich.irds,  1  Grant,  330,  332  ;  post,  §  G3. 

6  Cassin  v.  Delany,  38  N.  Y.  173,  17n  ;  pout,  I  66. 

7  White  r.  Wager,  25  N.  Y.  32S,  330.  And  oven  under  later  acts  his 
undue  inliuenco  mav  be  easily  proved:  Whiterldge  v.  Barry,  42  Md. 
140,  153  ;  Witbeck,  25  Mich.  43'J. 

8  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ?  400  ;  post. 

0  Elijah  I'.  Taylor,  ^7  111.  247,  240  ;  Commonw.  v.  Wood,  f"  Mass. 
225,  221 » ;  Glovor?'.  Alcott,  11  Mich.  471,  485;  Commonw.  v.  Barrv,  2 
Green.  Or.  Hop.  285,  2S7.  See  Cal.  Civ.  Code,  I  150  ;  Ga.  Code.  1873, 
k  1753. 

10  Flrebrace,  Law  R.  4  Pro.  &  B.  P3,  07 ;  Hanbery,  23  Ala.  7lo,  724  ; 
Hardenbergh,  14  Cal.  ftW,  fi.5'!.  f>.">7  ;  Kennedy,  87  111.  2.50,  252  ;  Cutler,  2 
Brewst.  511,  513.    Cases  collected,  Stewart  M.  &r>.U  221,  253. 

11  Cutler,  2  Brewst.  511,513, 

12  Cochrane,  8  Dowl.  P.  C.  0.30,  0.30  ;  Price, 2  Fost.  &  F.  263. 26-1 ;  Bab 
bitt,  65  111.  277,  27J  ;  surtra,  n.  10. 

13  Hardenbergh,  14  Cal.  6.>»,  P.50 ;  Bovce,  23  N.  J.  Eq.  .337, 34^  ;  Bishop, 
30  Pa.  St.  412,  415  ;  Cutler,  2  Brewst.  511,  5:3;  Powell,  2J  Vt.  14j,  150; 
Gleason,  4  Wis.  64,  (iij. 

11    Il.ur.  10  Rich.  Eq.  163, 17S. 

15    Clark  V.  Harlan,  1  Cin.  Ilcp.  4:s,  422 ;  nnte,  §  51. 

18    Eoyce,  23  N.  J.  Eq.  337,  .348. 

17  Cutler,  2  Brewst.  511, 513  ;  Powell,  2.T  Vt.  14S,  1,:3  ;  Gleason,  4  Wis. 
64,  66.    For  this  would  be  cruelty :  Stewart  M.  &  D.  f  J  251-273. 

18  Bishop,  30  Pa.  St.  412,  4!5. 

19  Powell,  29  Vt.  148, 150. 

20  Piatt  V.  New,  Law  R.  3  App.  3.30, 313.  See  Stewart  JL  «fe  I).  J  222 ; 
ante,  I  29. 

21  Porterfleld  i-.  Augu  ^ta,  67  Me.  5.56,  557. 

22  Stewart  M.  <fe.  D.  ?  221. 

23  Barber,  21  How.  582,  534  ;  Stewart  M.  £z  D.  ?  221 ;  ante,  \  23. 


85  CONJUGAIi   RIGHTS   AND   OBLIGATIONS.      §?  61-62 

24  Fulton,  36  Miss.  517, 528. 

25  C'ommo;nv.  v.  Wood,  07  IMass.  225,  229. 

26  Commonw.  v.  Barrj',  2  Groon  Cr.  Rep.  2S5,  2S7  ;  115  Mass.  14C. 

27  Cornmonw.  v.  Pratt,  126  Mass.  462,  463  ;  Commonw.  v.  Wood,  P7 
Mass.  225.  220 ;  Commonw.  v.  Barry,  2  Green  Cr.  Eep.  285,  287  ;  115 
Mass.  146. 

28  Glover  v.  Alcott,  11  Mich.  471,  485  ;  supra,  n.  27. 

29  Robinson  v.  Frost,  54  Vt.  103,  111 ;  41  Am.  Eep.  835. 

.30  Sawyer  r.  Cutting,  23  Vt.  486,  491 ;  Felker  v.  Emerson,  16  Vt.  653, 
655  ;  post,  \  00. 

g  61.  Conjugal  right  to  use  family  name.  —  The  husband 
being  heud  of  the  family, ^  tlie  wife  and  cliildren  gener- 
ally adopt  his  family  name  —  by  custom  the  wife  is 
called  by  her  husband's  name.^  But  whether  she  shall 
take  his  name  or  keoii  hers,  or  lie  take  liers,  is  after  all 
a  mere  question  of  choice  as  any  one  may  adopt  any 
name  he  or  she  pleases.^ 

1  Ante,  I  60. 

2  Converse.O  Rich.  Eq.  535,  .570.  See  Fendall  v.  Goldsmith,  Law  R. 
2  P.  D.  263,  264  ;  Snook,  2  Hilt.  566. 

3  SeePavr.  Brownriss,  LawR.  lOCh.  Biv.  2  i4  ;  48  Law  J.  Ch.  Div. 
173  ;  i)u  Boulay,  Law  Ji.  J  1'.  ( '.  4:i() ;  38  1,.  J.  I'.  C.  Mo;  Linton,  10  Fed. 
Rep.  805 ;  Clark,  10  Kan.  .VJ2  ;  Snook,  2  Hilt,  ."ifii: ;  .Johnston  v.  Goode- 
now,  44  Vt.  062  ;  discussed  in  Stewart  M.  &  I),  i  4:w. 

I  62.  Conjugal  right  of  personal  custody  and  restraint. 
—  1.  Tlie  husband  is  the  head  of  the  family,'  where  he 
goes  liis  wife  is  bound  to  follow, '^  and  he  has  a  iLirther 
right  of  gentle  restraint  over  her  movements.^  He 
may,  by  reasonable  measures,  en'orce  cohabitation  and 
a  common  residence,'  unless,  of  course,  he  has  lost  the 
right  of  cohabitation  ;  ^  he  may  lock  her  uji  to  prevent 
her  from  eloi^ing^  or  going  into  lewd  company  and 
squandering  her  mone^','  and  she  will  not  bo  released 
on  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus  ;  ^  nor  is  it  in  itself  cruelty  if 
he  prevents  her  visiting  her  family,*  or  relations,'"  or 
going  to  church.^i  But  he  has  no  right  to  confine  her 
unreasonably  and  arbitrarily, '^  and  if  he  does  she  will 
be  released  on  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus  ;  '^  so  if  by  moral 
or  physical  restraint  he  injuries  her  health  it  is, 
n.  &  w.  — 8. 


§  63  CONJUGAL  RIGHTS  AND  OBLIGATIONS.  86 

cruelty. 1^  lu  any  case  he  cannot  by  writ  of  habeas  cor- 
pus get  possession  of  her  unless  she  is  restrained  against 
her  wiil.'j  If  the  wife  is  an  infant,  the  husband  or  her 
parents  in  the  discretion  of  the  court  is  entitled  to  her 
custody.^^ 

2.  If  the  husband  is  insane  his  wife  is  head  of  the 
family  and  has  a  right,  superior  to  that  of  his  father,  to 
be  his  guardian.^'  If,  however,  she  should  lock  him  up 
to  prevent  his  eloping  or  keeping  lewd  company  and 
squandering  his  property,  he  would  be  released  on 
habeas  corpus.^^ 

1  Glover  V.  Alcott,  11  Mich.  471,  485 ;  mite,  ?  60. 

2  Babbitt,  69  111.  277,  27:) ;  ante,  H  2.),  60. 

3  2  Blackst.  Com.  445 ;  2  Kent  Com.  181 ;  Commonw.  v.  Barry,  2 
Greeu  Cr.  Kep.  2S5,  2*t,  u  ;  pust,  i  63. 

4  Cochrane,  8  Dowl.  P.  C.  630,  636  ;  Price,  2  Post.  A  F.  213,  204. 

5  Cochrane,  8  Dowl.  P.  C.  630,  634  ;  ante,  i  '>X 

6  Cochrane,  8  Dowl.  P.  C.  630,  633 ;  State  v.  Cratou,  6  Ired.  161i 

7  Uster,  1  Strange,  477  ;  8  Mod.  22,  23. 

8  Cochrane,  8  Dowl.  P.  C.  630. 

9  Waring,  2  Phillim.  132  ;  1  Eng.  210, 211 

10  And  see  Fulton,  30  Miss.  517,  528. 

11  Lawrence,  3  Paige,  267,  272. 

12  Kelly,  Law  K.  2  P.  &  D.  31,  34,  37. 

13  Lister,  8  Mod.  22,  23. 

14  Kelly,  Law  R.  2  P.  &  D.  31,  32.    See  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ??  261-273. 

15  SandUands,  12  Eng.  I,.  Eq.  46;{,  405  ;  17  Jur.  317  ;  21  Law  J.  Q.  B. 
312  ;  Rex  v.  Leggatt,  IS  Q.  B.  781 ;  Re.x  c.  Wist^mun,  2  Smith,  617. 

16  Gibbs  V.  Brown ,  63  Ga.  803, 804. 

17  Robinson  v.  Frost,  54  Vt.  105, 110  ;  41  Am.  Rep.  8:i5. 

18  The  question  seems  never  to  have  arisen. 

g  63.  Conjugal  rijht  of  persoaal  chastisement. — Vio- 
lence of  one  spouse  against  the  other  may  be  assault 
and  battery, 1  and  crueUy ;  '^  the  party  guilty  of  such 
violence  may  bo  punished  by  the  State,^  and  the  other 
party  may  leave  him  or  her  and  may  ap^jly  for  a  di- 
vorce.* Though  the  old  writers  say  that  a  husband 
may  chastise  his  wife  with  a  rod  no  thicker  than  his 
thumb,^  in  modern  times  the  rule  of  love  has  super- 


87  CONJUGAL.  RIGHTS  AMD  OBLIUATIONS.  §  64 

seded  the  rule  of  force,*  and  even  among  the  lower 
classes'  a  husband  has  no  right  to  beat  hi -i  wife  at  all,^ 
even  it  she  is  drunk^  or  insolent. i"  IT  she  dies  from  his 
beating  he  i.5  guilty  of  manslaughter  at  least.^i  A  hus- 
band, therefore,  may  use  violence  against  liLs  wi'e  only 
in  self-defense,'''  or  in  restraining  lier  from  the  com- 
mission of  some  tort  i*  or  crime. ''  Wife  whipping  is  in 
many  Siates  a  si^ecial  misdemeanor.^^ 

1  Owen  V.  State,  7  Tex.  App.  32 »,  X~  ;  ante,  U  J',  49. 

2  Stewart  M.  &  D.  U  2S1-273. 
.•»    AnteAl-i~,'iO. 

4  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ??  ITS,  2.-,7,  261-273. 

5  See  Blackst.  Com.  444,  44.i  ;  Trowbriflgo  r.  Carlln,  12  La.  An.  882  ; 
A'lanis,  ion  Mass.  3(>r),  370;  1  Am.  Rep.  lU  ;  Bradlev  v.  State,  1  Miss. 
lo(i,  157,  l.").S  ;  State  v.  Oliver,  70  N.  C.  60,  61 ;  Kicliards,  1  Grant  Cas.  3SJ, 
392. 

6  Fulgham  v.  State,  46  Ala.  143, 143  ;  Schoul.  H.  <&  W.  ?  68. 

7  Fulgham  v.  State,  4R  Ala.  143, 147. 

8  Pearman,  1  Rwab.  A  T.  601,  602;  Prieharrl,  3  Swab.  &  T.  523; 
Kelly,  Law  K.  2  Pro.  &  ]).  31,  5J  ;  Carpenter,  Milw.  1.5;) ;  Siunders,  1 
Rob.  Ecc.  .54  » ;  Fulgham  v.  State,  46  Ala.  143,  14.5  ;  State  v.  Bucklev,  2 
Har.  (Del.)  .'«.>;  (iholston,  31  Ga.  625,  6:'..5  ;  Knight,  31  Iowa,  451,  4.5.); 
Trowljri  Igo  v.  Cailin,  12  La.  An.  882  ;  Commonw.  r.  McAfee,  108  Mass. 
4').S,  IHl  ;  U  Am.  Rep.  383;  Bar'lley  v.  State,  1  Miss.  1.56,  1.57;  Poor,  8 
N.  II.  3117,  313;  21  Am.  Dec.  664;  Perry,  2  Paige,  .501,  .503;  State  v. 
Oliver,  70  N.  C.  60,  61  ;  Taylor,  76  N.  C.  43:<,  435  ;  State  v.  Rhodes,  I 
Pliill.  (X.  C.')453  ;  J5as"om,  "Wright,  6L' ;  Jani'S  r.  Cnmmonw.  12  Serg. 
&  R.  220,  226  ;  K  Imonts,  ,57  Pa.  St.  2:!2  ;  Gormin  v.  .state,  42  T'^x.  221, 
223  ;  Owen  r.  Stale.  7  Tex.  App.  32;t,  3:!7  ;  Shackctt,  4  i  Xt.  Mo,  l'i7  ;  Pil- 
lar, 22  Wis.  65S;  People  v.  Winters,  2  Park.  Cr.  C.  10;  Richards,  1' 
Grant  Cus.  ;189,  392  ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  U  266,  269.  270. 

9  Pearman,  1  Swab.  &  T.  601,  602 ;  Commonw.  v  McAfee,  108  Mass. 
453,401;  U  Am.  Rep.  383. 

10  Commonw.  '■.  McAfee,  108  Mass.  458,  431 ;  11  Am.  Rep.  3,83. 

11  Commonw.  v.  Mc.\fee,  108  M.ass.  453,  411  ;  11  Am.  Rep.  3.S3. 

12  Gorman  v.  State,  42  Tex.  221,  223  ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  §  270. 

13  People  V.  Winters,  2  Park.  Cr.  C.  10. 

14  Richards,  1  Grant  Cas.  3S1,  312.  See  Commonw.  v.  Wood,  1)7 
Mass.  225,  22J ;  Commonw.  v.  Barry,  2  Green  Cr.  Rep.  285,  287  n. 

15  Ga.  Code  1873,  §  4.573  ;  Md.  Acts  1S02,  ch.  120,  p.  132. 

?;  64.  Conjujal  rijht  of  support.  — .V  liusband  is  bound 
to  support  liis  Avife,  and  a  wife  i:kiy  b3  bound  to  sup- 
port lier  husband.  Both  liusband  and  wife  may  bo 
bound  to  support  the  family. 


§  64  CONJUGAL   KIGxITJ   A^-^   OI^LIGATIONS,  88 

1.  The  husband^s  liabiluj.  By  the  common  law  a 
husband,  though  an  mfant,i  is  bound  to  support  his 
wife.-  He  canuoi  cliarge  her  or  her  estate  wiili  the 
expenses  of  lier  support.^  The  wi^'e  may  directly  en- 
force this  obligation  of  his  bj'  a  suit  for  maintenance,* 
or  for  alimony  with  divorce,^  or  Jndlrectlj^  enforce  it  by 
pledging  his  credit  to  otheri  Avho  provide  her  with 
necessaries,*  The  husband's  neglect  of  this  duty,  if  it 
results  in  tlio  wue's  death,  is  manslaughter  at  least  ;^ 
it  may  be  punishable  criminally  by  statute  ;8  and  by 
statute  it  may  bo  a  cause  ior  divorce'*;  but  it  is  not  in 
itself  a  cause  for  divorce,^"  as  desertion '^  or  cruelty. '^ 
This  obligation  cannot,  however,  be  enforced  if  the  wife 
has  sufficient  means  of  her  own,"  or  has  waived"  or 
forfeited  1^  her  riglits.  Slie  may  vv'aive  lier  rights  for 
valuable  consideration,'*  as  in  a  deed  of  separation.'^ 
She  forfeits  them  by  leaving  her  husband  a^ralnst  hi3 
■\nll  when  he  is  not  in  fault,'^  or  by  his  leaving  her  for 
her  fault ;  '^  but  not  by  becoming  insane.^  The  hus- 
band's obligation  to  support  his  wife  is  not  removed  by 
manned  women's  separate  property  acts,'^'  excejjt  so  far 
as  they  give  her  means  of  her  owai.*^-'  This  right  ceases 
with  divorce,-^  but  may  continue  some  tmie  after  the 
husband's  death. -< 

2.  The  ivijVs  Uabilitj,  By  the  common  law  all  a 
wife's  personalty,^  and  all  her  earnings  and  laljo'-,'^ 
belong  to  her  husband ;  and  oven  under  separate  earn- 
ings acts  she  is  still  Iiis  helpmeet,  and  cannot  cliargo 
him  for  domestic  services  ;  -''  in  this  way  she  i ;  bound 
to  support  him.  In  many  States  statutes  provide 
various  means  of  compelling  a  wife  to  support  her 
needy  husband;^  these  statutes  seem  to  have  raised 
no  questions.'-'^ 

3.  Their  joint  liability.  Husband  and  "wafe  are  jointly 
liable  for  the  supx^ort  of  their  family,*"  so  fax*  at  least 


89  CONJUGAL,   RIGHTS   AND   OBLIGATIONS,  §  64 

that  one  cannot  recover  from  the  other  for  exjienses 
paid.^i  So  statutes  in  some  States  make  them  jointly 
liable.*- 

1  Cantlne  v.  Phillips,  5  Har.  (Del.)  428, 429.    Compare  post,  I  67,  n.  7. 

2  See  Zeigler  v.  iJavid,  23  Ala.  127, 1S7 ;  Washburn.  9  C  il.  475,  477  ; 
Shelton  v.  PeiifUeton,  18  Conn.  417,  421  ;  Cantine  v.  Phillips,  5  Har. 
(Del.)  428,  429  ;  Ronev  v.  Wood,  1  Wils.  378  ;  Cooper  r.  Ham,  40  Ind. 
393,  416  ;  Litson  v.  Brown,  26  Ind.  4^9,  491  ;  Graves,  36  Iowa,  310,  312  ; 
14  Am.  Rep.  .525 ;  Com.  v.  Fletcher,  6  Bush,  171,  172 ;  Garland,  .50  Miss. 
6't4,  716 ;  Allen  i\  Aldrich,  29  N.  H.  6 1,  73  ;  Miller,  1  X.  J.  L.  .^86 ;  Pom- 
erov  V.  AVells,  8  Paige,  406,  411;  Gage  v.  Dauchy,  34  2f.  Y.  293,  297; 
State  V.  Rausell,  41  Conn.  433, 440. 

3  Grant  1'.  Green,  41  Iowa,  8^,  91.  See  Rogers  ?'.  Boyd,  33  Ala.  175  : 
Noil  V.  Johnson,  11  Ala.  6:5 ;  .Stroijg  v.  Skinner,  4  Barb.  546 ;  Metho- 
dist r*.  Jaques,  1  Johr.s.  Ch.  4:3 ;  Callahan  v.  Patterson,  4  Tex.  61 ; 
McCormick,  7  Leigh,  60. 

4  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ?  173. 

5  Stewart  M.  &JXU  353-"33. 
G    Stewart  M.  &  D.  5  133. 

V  Reg.  V.  Plummer,  1  Car.  &  K.  GOO  ;  Desty  Crim.  L.  ??  57  a,  87  ft. 

8  See  Conn.  Acts,  1331,  p.  73  ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  i  177. 

0  Stewart  M.  &  I).  U  273-2^1. 

10  Stewart  M.  &  D.  §  176. 

11  JIandigo,  15  Vt.  7S6,  7S7 ;  Stewart  M.  <fe  D.  ?  2.52. 

n    Peabody,  IM  JIass.  135, 197  ;  Stewart  M.  A  T).  \  260. 

13    Kin.sey,  .37  Ala.  333,  .336  ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ??  173,  ISO,  372. 

H  Fredd  v.  Evps,  4  liar.  (Del.)  3S5,  .3S7;  H'^Jiev  v.  Sargent,  54  Cal. 
396,  338  ;  Stewart  M.  &,\y.\\  173,  ISO,  IJO,  372,  3'^2. 

15  Whale,  71  111.  510,  .513;  Dexon  v.  Hurrell,  8  Car.  &  P.  717,  719; 
Stewart  M.  &  D.  \l  179,  180,  371. 

ll    Pearson  r.  Darrinffton,  .32  Ala.  227,  24.3.    .See  mi^e,  Coxtracts 

ElCTWKKN  llrSB-AXD  AXD  Wl?K,  ?J  40-46. 

17  Stewart  M.  &  D.  |J  131-192,  3S2  ;  ante,  U  •i*-46. 

18  Schnuckle  v.  Bierman,  83  111.  4.54, 4rj7  ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  U  175, 
173,  ISO,  371. 

13  Hnrdie  v.  Grant,  8  Car.  &  P.  5:2,  517  ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  {|  175, 179, 
130, 371,  4:i6. 

20  Wrav,  33  .-Ma.  137,  130;  Wrav  v.  Cox,  24  Ala.  337,  343  ;  Stewart 
IM.  &  D.  ii  176, 173.    See  Goodale  v.  Brockner,  25  Hun,  621. 

21  Suttle  II.  Chicago,  42  Iowa,  518,  .522 ;  Ransom,  ^  Mich.  .563,  .574  : 
ITuyt  i:  Whit'',  46  N.  H.  45,  46  ;  Markley  v.  Wartman,  9  Phila,  236  ; 
supra,  n.  3 ;  ante,  ??  12, 14.    See  Duubar  v.  Meyer,  43  Miss.  673. 

22  Supra,  n.  13. 

23  Stewart  'SI.  &  D.  ?  436. 

24  Stewart  M.  A  D.  ?  4.59. 

25  rost,  U  163-18.3. 

20    P^jst,  >i  05. 

27  Mowhirter  v.  Halten,  42  Iowa,  288,  292  ;  20  Am.  Rep.  618  ;  posi. 
^6.5. 


§  65  C0:sJU3AL,  RIGHTS  AND  OBLIGATIONS.  90 

2«i  TCriKlish  Marr.  Woman's  Act,  1882,  c.  75,  ?20;  Cal.  Civ.  Code, 
?  176  ;  Iowa  K.  C.  ISSO,  i  22:6 ;  Miss.  P.  S.  1882.  p.  817,  J  36  ;  N.  J.  Kev- 
1877,  p.  -m  ;  Nev.  R.  S.  1873,  §  174  ;  Vt.  R.  S.  1880,  ?  2377. 

23    Small,  42  Iowa,  111,  112,  seems  to  be  the  only  case. 
."50    Stewart  M.  &  D.  ^  404  ;  post,  ?  387. 
31    Finch,  22  Conn.  411,  -!18,  413  ;  Fitler,  33  Pa.  St.  i50,  57. 
3?    Ala.  Code,  1876,  ??  2705.  2706 ;  Iowa  R.  C.  1880,  §  2214.    See  Baker  v. 
Flournoy,  58  Ala.  653 ;  Jones  v.  Glass,  48  Iowa,  345. 

^  65.  Eight  to  spouse's  time,  services,  wages,  earnings, 
oto.  —  Wliiie  a  wifo  has  no  right  as  wife  to  her  hus- 
band's services,  except  such  as  is  incidental  to  her 
right  to  support,'  a  husband  is  by  the  common  hiw 
entitled  as  husband  to  his  wife's  time,  wages,  earnings, 
and  the  products  of  her  labor,  skill,  and  indu.stry.^ 
lie  may  contract  to  furnish  her  services  to  others.^ 
He  sues  for  the  price  of  them,*  ai  for  the  loss  of  them,^ 
in  his  own  name.*'  She  cannot  release  an  obligation  for 
them,'  except  as  his  agent,^  or  by  his  consent.*  Even 
if  her  earnings  have  been  invested  by  her  in  her  own 
name,  the  investment  jyro  tnnto^"  is  his,ii  and  liable  to 
his  creditors.^2  If  he  dies  her  earnings  acquired  be- 
fore his  death  go  to  his  representatives.'^  The  husband 
may  forfeit  tliis  right  by  desertion,  it  seems,'*  so  he  may 
waive  it,'^  or  it  may  be  taken  from  him  by  statute. "^ 

1.  Gift  by  husband  to  u'ifc  of  her  services.  The  Avife's 
earnings,  etc.,  may  be  secured  to  her  separate  use  by 
an  antenuptial''  or  postnuptial'^  settlement.'*  The 
ability  to  earn  is  not  property,'"  and  the  husband  may 
therefore  Avaivo  his  right  to  have  hi3  wife  labor  for  his 
use,  even  as  against  creditors;^'  but  money.s  received 
or  due  for  labor,  i,  e.,  earnings,  are  property, ^^  and 
though  a  husband  may  give  his  wife  her  earnings.''^ 
sucli  gift,  like  that  of  any  other  property,"-'*  must  not 
defraud  creditors.''^  The  burden  lies  upon  the  Avife  to 
clearly  prove  the  gift.^* 

2.  Effect  oj  modern   manned  women  acts.     Married 


91  CONJCfeAX   K1(>HTS   AND   OBLIGATIONS.  g  65 

women's  property  acts  which  do  not  specifically  men- 
tion her  earnings,  etc.,  do  not  change  the  husband's 
common-law  rights  to  the  same.^^  So  a  statute  whicli 
provides  that  a  wife  "may"  eai-n  money  on  he?'  sepa- 
rate account  does  not  affect  any  earnings  of  hers  unless 
they  appear  to  have  been  acquired  by  lier  on  lier  sepa- 
rate account. 28  But  in  most  of  tlie  States  statutes  ex- 
pressly provide  that  the  wife's  earnings  "sliall  be" 
her  separate  property,^  and  tliat  sl^e  may  trade  on  her 
separate  account.^"  Under  such  statutes  the  product 
of  all  labor  of  hers  for  parties  otlier  than  her  husband 
belongs  to  her;^!  she  can  contract^'  for  her  se:>a:3S 
and  recover  on  the  contract  ;3*  she  can  sue  alone  for 
them,'*  and  muke  her  husband,  if  need  be,  garnirjhee  ; '* 
a  debt  due  by  her  luisband  cannot  be  set  off  against 
her  in  sucli  suit,'*  and  neither  her  liusband'"  nor  his 
creditors '8  have  any  right  to  such  eai-niiigs,  though,  as 
with  her  other  8ei:)arate  jiroperty,'*  she  may  give  them 
to  her  husband,*"  and  sucli  a  gift  is  presumed,  it  seems, 
if  with  her  consent  and  witliout  promising  to  repay 
her*i  he  uses  them,*'-  or  mixes  tliem  witli  his  own 
money.*'  But  these  statutes  do  not  impliedly  autnor- 
ize  her  contracts  Avith  lier  husband  for  services,**  and 
she  cannot  recover  from  him  for  services  rendered,*^ 
though  she  may,  it  seems,  if  the  statute  or  some  other 
statute  expressly  authorizes  contracts  between  husband 
and  wife ;  **  she  is  still  bound  without  charge  to  look 
after  his  home  and  children,*'  and  to  perform  the 
domestic  conjugal  duties  of  wife ;  '^^  she  is  still  his 
"helpmeet."*"  These  statutes  are  prospectively  con- 
strued 5^"  indeed,  they  could  not  deprive  the  husband 
of  money  for  her  services,  already  paid  or  due.^i 

1  See  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ??  179, 180  ;  ante,  ?  fij. 

2  Cecil  r.  Juxon,  1  Atk.  278,  270  ;  Seitz  v.  Mitchell,  W  U.  S.  580,  584  ; 
Glenn  v.  Johnson,  in  Wall.  476,  478  ;  IVxUl,  15  Ala.  743,  744  ;  McLemore 
V,  Pinkston,  31  Ala.  267,  270;  Hinmaii  v.  Parkis,  33  Conn.  188,  197; 


2  Gj  conjugal   rights   and   OCLIGATIOXS.  92 

Hazelhakor  v.  Goodfellow,  64  III.  237,  2-41  ;  Cranor  v.  M'intors,  7.',  I;i(l. 
301,  :Wi ;  Glover  r.  Alcott,  11  Mich.  471,  4S2  ;  Henderson  v.  Warmark, 
27  Miss.  8:iO,  8:m  ;  Hoyt  v.  White,  46  >'.  II.  172,  17.'> ;  Skillnian,  15  X.  J. 
Eq.  47S,  4S1  ;  13  N.  J.  Kq.  JOn,  40r, ;  FiU-r  v.  R.  H.  4  1  X.  Y.  47,  .W  ;  II) 
Am.  Rep.  327  ;  Kee  )'.  Vnnscr,  2  I  red.  P.q.  -'vvi,  fto-i;  40  Am.  Dec.  442  ; 
Ravbold,  20  Pa.  .St.  30S,  311  ;  Uollowell  r.  Hurler, :«  Pa.  St.  :<7.5.  .3-*n  ; 
Hoozer  v.  Addison,  2  Rich.  Kq.  273,  275  ;  Jones  v.  Reid,  12  W.  Viu  350, 
:v,r,;  2!)  Am.  Rop.  455;  Connors,  4  Wis.  112,  l!7 ;  Elliott  v.  Bentley  17 
Wis.  591,  5J4. 

3  Harrington  v.  Gies,  45  Mich.  374,  375. 

4  Cranor  V.  Winters,  75  Ind.  C01,333;  SkUlman,  13  X.  J.  Eq.  403,407. 

5  Brooks  V.  Schwerin,  W  N.  Y.  343,  343  ;  Filer  t-.  11.  11.  49  N.  Y.  47, 
LZ;  10  Am.  r^n.  327. 

0  Ilawes  Parties  to  Actions,  58,  63, 64,  Co. 

7  Skillman,  13  X.  J.  Eq.  403,  408  ;  15  X.  J.  Kq.  47%  4S1. 

8  Kowing  V.  Manly,  49  X.  Y.  192,  197  ;  10  Am.  Rep.  "K;  prut,  {?  89, 
!)J. 

9  Hinman  v.  Parkis,  33  Conn.  183, 197  ;  infra,  notes,  17-26. 

10  Apple  V.  Oanong,  47  Miss.  IS"),  199.  Bnt  he  has  no  rlirht  against 
h"r  s^par.ite  pro::ertv:or  s.Tvlces  rendered  It  by  hor:   Ifolcomb  i-. 

I'e  ries,  or  .. ;.;.  :m. 

11  Apple  V.  Ganong,  47  Miss.  189, 190 ;  infra,  n.  12. 

12  Swartz  r.  Siir.nders,  4f>  111.  IS,  24;  Pn'i'>a'i  ?•.  Uoselle.  15  Iowa, 
.501,. 503;  Henderson  r.  Warmack.  27  Mis.s.  s:ii).  Hi'. ;  Apple  i'.  (ianoncr, 
47  Miss.  189,199;  CYamer  v.  Ilefcrd.  17  X.J.  PIq.  .ms,  3«l ;  Ravbold,  29 
Pa.  St.  .308,  311  ;  Campbell  r.  Bowles,  30Gratl.  (m2. 

13  Todd,  15  Ala.  7:3. 744  ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ??  401, 46.'i.  But  see  Boozer 
1".  Addison,  2  Rich.  Eq.  273,  27.5,  2S2. 

14  See  Mason  v.  Mitchell,  3  Hurl.  *  C.  FS^,  .532:  R"cs  f.  Waters,  0 
AVatts,  90,  94  ;  .Starrett  r.  Wynn,  17  Serg.  &  R.  i:X);  17  Am.  Dec.  tWi^l ; 
.Stewart  M.  &  D.  J  177. 

15  Peterson  i-.  :MuIford,  ST.  X.  J.  I>.  481,  487  ;  iufm,  notes,  17-20. 

Ifi  Mewhirter  v.  Halten,  42  Iowa,  2^\  201,  293;  20  Am.  Rep.  fi:8 ; 
infra,  notes,  27-51. 

17  .\ndrews,  8  Conn.  79,  85;  Keith  r.  ■\Voombell,  3  Pick.  211,  213; 
Stewart  M.  <fe  D.  U  ;!2-13. 

18  Sktllman,  15  X.  J.  Eq.  478,  4S1  ;  13  X.  J.  Eq.  403,  407  ;  Stewart  M. 
&  D.  a  isl,  193. 

19  Post,  U  !»-1;M,  197-216. 

20  See  Peterson  v.  Mnlford,  30  X.  J.  L.  481,4<!7:  TTovt  v.  -White,  48 
X.  H.  45.  47  ;  .Vhbev  v.  Devo,  44  X.  Y.  .3-13,  347  ;  itush  v."  Vought,  .V.  Pa. 
St.  437,  445  ;  Hodges  i'.  Cobb,  8  Rich.  50,  56. 

21  Hoyt  V.  White,  46  X.  H.  45,  47 ;  Peterson  r.  MnWord,  36  X.  J.  1. 
432,  487  ;  Quidort  v.  Pergeaux,  18  N.  J.  Eq.  472,  479. 

22  See  Ilazelbaker  )•.  Goodfellow,  &4  111.  238,  241. 

23  McLemore  v.  Pinkston,  31  ,\la.  207,  209  ;  Glaze  r.  Blake,  156  Ala. 
.■?79  ;  Ha<ien  v.  Ivev,  51  Ala.  1181,  3S.5  ;  Andrews, 8Conn.  79,8.5  ;  Hinman 
r.  Parkis,  33  Conn.  Is-i,  l:i7 ;  Oglesby  v.  Hal!,  30  iin.  .3^6,  3  HI ;  Hazel- 
baker  V.  tTOOdfellow,  i;4  III.  23'<,  241  ;  Cranor  »•.  Winters,  75  Ind.  301, 
:{03  ;  Rnsham  r.  Cliamberlain.  7  Mon.  B.  443,  44.5,  440  ;  Keith  v.  Woom- 
hell,  8  Pick.  211,  213  ;  Hovt  i\  White,  46  X.  H.  45.  47  ;  Qnidort  »•.  Per- 
goau.x,  IS  X.  J.  Eq.  478,  431 ;  13  X.  J.  Eq.  403,  407  ;  Peterson  i-.  Mulford 


93  CONJUGAL   RIGHTS   AXD   OBLIGATIONS.  I    65 

36  N.  J.  L.  481,  4S7;   Koe  >•.  Vixsser,  2  Ired.   Eq.  553,  5.55;  Elliott  v. 
Bentley,  17  Wis.  o'Jl,  5'.)6  ;  Connors,  4  Wis.  112, 117. 

24  Bump  Fraud.  Convey.  22,  23. 

25  Ilazclbakor  1'.  Ooodfellow,  64  111.  233,  241  ;  Basliam  r.  Chnmber- 
lii:i,  7  Moil.  B.  443,  44."),  44(! ;  Keith  r.  Woomhcll,  S  Pick.  211.  21.i ; 
Kramer  v.  Iteferd,  17  N.  J.  Eq.  367,  3s0  ;  post,  U  li;>-118. 

26  McLemore  )'.  Pinlcston,  31  Ala.  2f>7.  270  ;  SklUman,  15  N.  J.  Eq. 
478,  481 ;  13  N.  J.  Eq.  40!,  407;  post,  U  H'-*.  121. 

27  Seltz  V.  Mitchell,  W  V.  .S.  ,5S0,  5S4  ;  Mitchell  v.  .Seitz,  1  McAr.  4S(), 
483;  McLemore  v.  Piiik.ston,  31  Ala.  2C7,  270;  Carletoii  i:  Kiv<Ts,  W 
.Via.  467  ;  Bear  t:  II.ivw.  3«  III.  ISO,  2S1  ;  Karrell  v.  Patterson,  43  111.  52, 
.5) ;  Connor  v.  P>  rrv,  46  111.  370,  372  ;  .Swart/,  r.  Samplers,  4<)  111.  \s,  24  ; 
MrMurtry?'.  Webster,  4H  III.  123,124;  Marshall  r.  Duke,  51  Ind.  61,62; 
Duncan  v.  Boselle,  15  Iowa,  .501,  .503  ;  Jlerrill  )■.  Smith,  :!7  Me.  »M,  3!I6  ; 
Glover  •!'.  Alcott,  14  Mich.  470,  4S2 ;  Henderson  v.  Warmack,  27  Miss, 
KV),  835  ;  Apple  v.  (iaiiong,  47  JIlss.  Ul,  I'M  ;  Ilovt  i'.  White,  46  N.  H. 
45,  47 ;  Quldort  v.  PerRoanx,  IS  N.  J.  Eq.  4T2,  480  ;  Rider  v.  Hulse,  3.1 
Barb.  264,  270;  .Syme  i>.  Riddle,  88  N.  C.  46:},  465 ;  Raybold,  20  Pa.  St. 
308,  311. 

2^  McClnskv  v.  Provident,  103  Mass.  .300,  304,  305 ;  Blckback  v.  Ac!:- 
royd,  11  Ilun,:«>>,  360  ;  Bean  v.  Kiab,  4  llun,  171, 174  ;  ante,  ii  16-18. 

2:)  Rep  Meriwether  r.  Smith,  44  Oa.  .541,  543  ;  Martin  v.  Rotson,  C5 
111.  12:i,  li'w) ;  16  Am,  Itep.  .57>i ;  JNInsgrove.  54  111.  186,  188  ;  Bradstroot  v. 
B.ier,  41  Md.  10,  25  ;  AtteberK,  8  Oreg.  224. 

ro  See  Haas  v.  Shaw,  91  Ind.  .384,  .396  ;  Orrell  v.  Van  Gorder,  96  Pa. 
St.  180. 

31    Brooks  v.  Schwerin,  54  N.  Y.  M3,  W8  ;  infra,  notes  32-12  ;  supra, 
11.  2 ), 
C2    Larimer  v.  Kelly,  10  Kan.  298, 305. 
_?.3    Larimer  i'.  Kelly,  10  Kan.  238,  305 ;  Cooper  v.  Alger,  ;i  1".  II.  172, 

34  Turnks  v.  Grover,  57  Me.  .586,  588.  S.  P.  Allen  v.  Eldridge,  1  Colo. 
2H,s;  Meriwether  v.  Smith,  44  Ga.  W3 ;  Fowle  r.  Tldd,  15  Gr.^v,  !M  ; 
Burke  v.  Cnle,  !)7  :M!\ss.  114  ;  Cooper  v.  Alger,  51  N.  K.  174,  IT 5.  But 
sec  (iay  v.  Rogers,  18  Vt.  ;S42. 

."5    Tumks  V.  Grover,  57  Me.  586,  588. 

rc,    Whiting  V.  Beckwith,  31  Conn.  ,5.5.3,  .55.5. 

37    Brooks  v.  Schwerin,  54  N.  Y.  34.3,  .348. 

V.'i    Glenn  v.  Johnson,  18  Wall.  476,  478. 

3:)  Inequitv;  Andrews  i'.  Huckabee,  .30  Ala.  143, 1.52.  At  law,  see 
23  Alb.  L.  J.2S.5,  2,86. 

40  S"e  Shaoffer  v.  Sheppard,  64  Al.a.  244  ;  Bowden  v.  Gra",  49  Miss. 
.547:  Qnidort)'.  Pergeaux,  18  N.  J.  Eq.  .372,  480;  Ilallowell  V.  Ilorter, 
Co  I>a.  St.  375,  380. 

41  See  Hill,  38  Md.  18.3,  18,5. 

42  Hallowell  v.  Horter,  35  Pa.  St.  37.5,  380. 

43  Quidort  v.  Pergeaux,  18  X.  J.  Eq.  472,  480.    Consult  cases  »upra, 

n.  23. 

44  Hnzelbaker  v.  Goodfellow,  64  111.  238,  241  ;  Mewhirter  v.  Halten, 
42  Iowa,  2s8,  2'.»1.  2'P3  ;  2il  Am.  Rep.  i:is  ;  Grant  r.  Green,  41  Iowa,  w,  91, 
ii2;  Glover  r.  AlcDtt,  U  Mich.  471,  4S3  ;  Brooks  ;•.  Schwerin,  54  N.  Y. 
24-3,  .34.S;  Ri'Viiolds  r.  Robinson.  64  X.  Y.  589,  533;  Bean  V.  Kiah,  4 
Hun.  171,  174  ;  2:i  Alb.  L.  J.  28.5.  23G. 


J  66  CONJUGAL   EIGHTS  ASSD   OBLIGATIONS.  94 

45  MewhirtPr  v.  Halten,  42  lown,  28'',  23S ;  26  Am.  Kep.  618.  See 
s.  'pra,  n.  44  ;  Shaeffer  v.  Slieppard,  54  Ala.  244. 

IG    Reynolds  v.  Robinson,  G4  X.  Y.  5.^3.  503. 

47    Mewhirter  v.  Halten,  42  Iowa,  2SS,  202  ;  20  Am.  Rep.  6!S. 

43    Glover  v.  Alcott,  11  Jlich.  471.  483. 

43    Mewhirter  v.  Halten.  42  Iowa,  253,  232  ;  20  Am.  Rep.  618. 

5D    As  to  all  statutes,  see  infra,  n.  .il ;  ante,  ?  21. 

51  Farrell  v.  Patterson,  40  111.  62,  5S  :  Jassay  v.  Delius,  65  111.  4(59, 
471  ;  MeDavid  %\  Adams,  77  III.  l-i%  l')(i  ;  Kaser.  Painter,  77  111.  643, 
.">«  ;  Rider  v.  Hulse,  3:j  Barb.  264, 271 ;  ante,  i  2:5. 

?  66.  Conjugal  liability  in  tort.  —  There  i:,  no  liability 
of  wife  as  -wife  for  torts  of  her  husband,  but- a  husband 
as  husband  is  generally  liable  for  hia  v.ife's  torts. 

1.  Wife's  antenuptial  torts.  A  husband,  at  common 
law,  takes  his  wife  Avith  all  her  liabilities '  and  is  liable 
for  her  antenuptial  torts  '■'  for  the  same  reasons  and  to 
the  same  extent  as  he  is  liable  for  her  antenuptial  con- 
tracts;* and  to  the  .same  extent  also,  a  ;  he  is  liable  for 
her  postnuptial  torts  committed  out  of  his  presence  and 
Avithout  his  directions.^  Thus,  for  the  wife's  antenup- 
tial tort  husband  and  wife  must  bo  jointly  sued ;  *  (his 
liability,  however,  depends  on  his  being  her  lawful 
husband;^)  the  Statute  of  Limitations  runs  in  favor  of 
both  of  them;'  the  husband's  liability  must  be  fixed 
by  judgment  before  dissolution  of  the  marriage  hy 
death  8  or  divorce,^  while  the  wife's  survives ;  "*  and  a 
judgment  against  them  binds  the  property  of  them 
both.^i  This  liability  extends  to  acts  done  by  her  in  a 
representative  capacity,  for  example  as  guardian  i^  or 
administratrix.!^  It  is  in  many  States  removed  by 
express  statutes,"  but  the  Aveight  of  opinion  is  that  it  is 
not  aflfected  through  implication,  by  married  Avomen's 
projjerty  acts.'" 

2.  Wi/e^s  postnuptial  forts,  A  husband,  at  common 
laAV,  is  liable  for  all  torts  committed  bj^  his  Avife  durin-g 
coverture,!*  it  makes  no  difference  if  they  are  liA'ing 
apart,"  so  long  as  he  is  really  her  husband.^*    But  ho 


95  CONJUGAL  RIGHTS  AND  OBLIGATIONS.  ?  66 

cannot,  unless  his  wife  is  bis  agent  in  fact,^°  be  liable 
for  a  Tvrong  of  hers  based  on  her  invalid  contract,*^ 
as  where  she  got  credit  by  pretending  she  was  un- 
married,^i  or  misappropriated  money  placed  in  her 
keeping.22  And  though  if  he  allows  her  to  act  as  ad- 
ministratrix he  is  responsible  for  all  her  acts,^  her 
unauthorized  dealing  with  an  estate  does  not  render 
him  liable  as  executor  de  son  tort.^  For  her  torts  he 
may  be  liable  alone  or  jointly  with  her  :  (1)  If  the  tort 
is  committed  in  his  presence  and  nothing  more  ap- 
pears, it  is  his  sole  tort,^  for  she  is  presumed  to  have 
acted  under  his  coercion.^  (2)  If  the  tort  is  committed 
in  his  presence,  but  it  appear-^  that  she  ac'ed  of  her 
own  free  Avill,  they  are  jointly  liable. '^^  (3)  If  the  tort  is 
committed  in  his  presence  a-rainst  his  A\ill,  it  is  her 
tort  and  lie  is  liable  with  her.^^  (4)  If  the  tort  is  com- 
mitted out  of  his  presence,  but  by  his  direction,  she  is 
liable  jointly  with  him.^^  (.'>)  If  the  tort  is  committed 
out  of  his  presence  and  without  his  knowledge  or  con- 
sent he  is  liable  ■with  her.^"  In  cases  (1),  (2),  and  (4),  he 
is  liable  because  she  is  his  agent^^  and  to  the  same 
extent  as  any  other  master  is  for  the  acts  of  his  Ecr- 
vant.8^  In  cases  (3)  and  {'))  he  is  liable  because  she  is 
his  wife,^'' and  as  Math  her  antenuptial  contracts^*  and 
antenuptial  torts,^*  his  liability — unless  it  has  been 
fixed  by  judgment*^ — ceases  with  the  dissolution  of 
the  marriage.^'  In  case  (1)  she  cannot  be  sued.'^  In 
cases  (3)  and  (5)  he  cannot  be  sued  as  joijit  tvrong-doer 
—  the  suit  must  be  against  liim  as  husband P  In  cases 
(2)  and  (4)  they  are  jointly  liable  for  a  joint  tort'*" — 
though  it  is  said  that  a  joint  slander  is  an  impossibil- 
ity,^! and  that  a  conversion  is  to  the  husband,  not  to 
"their"  use;*^  and  the  husband  has  full  control  of  the 
suit.**  This  liability  of  the  husband  as  husband  has 
been  removed  by  ex^iress  statute  in  some  States ;  "  but 


g  63  CONJUGAL.   RIGHTS   AND   OBLIGATION'S.  93 

in  spite  of  statutes  his  liability  for  his  wife's  acts  as  his 
agent  remains.*'  But  tliis  liabilitj''  is  not  affected  by 
gcncral  married  women's  property  acts,**  (except  in 
Illinois*^  and  Kansas**)  or  even  by  a  provision  that  a 
husband  shall  not  be  liable  for  his  wife's  "debts."** 
Still,  when  as  to  her  separate  property  she  may  sue 
and  be  sued  without  her  husband,*"  he  is  not  liable, 
unless  he  took  part  therein,  for  her  tort  connected  with 
it 51 — as  for  her  cattle's  depradations^^  or  a  nuisance  on 
her  farm,**  But  wlien  in  her  separate  business  sho 
receives  stolen  goods  and  becomes  thereby  l:aljlc  i:i 
conversion,  her  husband  is  liable  because  she  never 
acquired  any  property  in  the  goods,**  Nor  is  he  liablo 
for  the  acts  of  an  insane  wife.** 

1  Forguson  v.  Collins,  8  Ark.  241,  252  ;  Hawk  t:  Harman,  5  Binn. 
43,  50. 

2  Fergnson  v.  Collins,  8  Ark.  241,  2.')2  ;  Phillips  v.  Richardson,  4 
Marsh.  J.  J.  212,  215  ;  Brown  v.  Kemper,  27  Md.  «>(),  672  ;  INIagruder  r. 
Darnull,  f>  Gill,  260,  2.sfi ;  McCreadv,  1  Tuck.  :rr4,  375;  Hawk  r.  Har- 
man, 5  Binn.  43,  W  ;  Ovcrholt  r.  Ellswell,  1  Ashm.  2(J0,  202;  Hubble 
r.  Fogartic,  3  Kieli.  413,415;  Allen  r.  McCulkmgh,  2  HeLsk.  174,  1S2  ; 
cases  cited  itifra,  n.  IG. 

3  See  Heard  v.  Stamford,  3  P.  Wms.  407,  412  ;  Hawk  r.  Harman,  5 
Binn.  43,  50  ;  post,  i  (i7. 

4  See  Baker  v.  Young,  42  111.  42,  4S  ;  infra,  n.  .10. 

5  Brown  v.  Kemper,  27  Md.  6fifi,  fi72  ;  Magruder  v.  Darnall,  6  Gill 
269,  286;  McCreadv,  1  Tuck.  374,  375  ;  Overliolt  v.  EUswell,  1  Ashm. 
200,202;  IChit.  PI.  81,y2. 

G    Overholt  t'.  Ellswell,  1  Ashm.  200, 202. 
7    Hawk  )'.  Harman,  5  Binn.  43,  50. 

S  Ferguson  r.  Collins,  8  Ark.  241,  2.i? ;  Phi'Iips  v.  Richardson,  4 
Mirsh.  J.  .1.  212,  214;  Allen  v.  McCullough,  2  Heisk.  174,  184  ;  5  Am. 
Rep.  27  ;  Stewart  JI.  &  D.  ^  468. 

9  Ferguson  r.  Collins,  8  Ark.  241,  252  ;  Stewart  M.  <fc  T).  ?  448.  But 
see  Allen  ji.  McCullough,  2  Heisk.  174,  i;i0  ;  5  Am.  Kep.  27. 

10    Ferguson  v.  Colli'is,  8  Ark.  241,  252.    Compare  Fultz  v.  Fox,  9 
ri,).!.  B.  4,M,  500,  501  ;  Jjost,  i  67. 
:i    Brown  v.  Kemper,  27  Md.  666, 672. 

12    Allen  v.  McCullough,  2  Heis'.c.  174, 132, 133  ;  5  Am,  Rep.  27. 
n    Ferguson  v.  Collins,  8  .A.rk.  241,  252;  Phillips  r.  Riehardson,  4 
M.irsh.  ,1.  .1.  212.  214  :  Magruder  r.  Darnall,  6  Gill,  26J,  2sr,  ;  Hubble  ti. 
Fogartie,  3  Rich.  413,  415. 

14  Md.  Acts  1880,  ch.  253,  ?§  31,  .?2  ;  post,  I  67  ;  vifra,  n.  44. 

15  McElfresh  v.  Kirkendall,  36  lowii,  224,  227  ;  infra,  notes  46,  53  ; 
ante,U  H)  l''>  I  l^ost,  I  67. 


97  CONJUGAL,   RIGHTS   AND   OBLIGATIONS.  ?  63 

16  Wright  r>.  Kerr,  Addis,  n  ;  Vino  v.  Saunders,  5  Scott,  359,  "0  ; 
Hoad  I'.  Briscoe,  5  Car.  &  V.  4S4,  4S;i ;  Taylor  v.  Greene,  8  Car.  <fe  P. 
3:6,  310  ;  Atty.-Gon.  v.  Riddle,  2  Cronip.  *  J.  4;)^  ;  Hope  v.  Carnegio, 
Law  R.  7Eq.  254  ;  Bohe  v.  Frownor,  IS  Ala.  8:),  95;  Ferguson  v.  Col- 
lins, 8  Ark.  241,  2.")2  ;  Balcor  v.  YoiKig,  44  111.  42,  48  ;  Martin  v.  Robson, 
65  111.  129,  l;X);  16  Am.  Rep.  .57^;  Ball  v.  Bennett,  21  Ind.  427,  423; 
Choen  v.  Porter,  66  Ind.  1!M,  I'ifi ;  McKlfrcsh  v.  Kirliendall,  36  Iowa, 
224,  227;  Enders  v.  Bock,  18  Iowa,  86,  87;  Pliillips  v.  Richardson,  4 
Marsh.  J.  J.  212,  214;  Hinds  v.  Jon^s,  48  Mo.  348,  349;  Ferguson  v. 
Brooks,  67  Me.  251,  255  ;  Mirsh:.!!  v.  Oakcs,  51  Me.  .308,  309  ;  Nolan  v. 
Traber,  49  Md.  460.  40^  ;  Handy  v.  Foley,  121  Mass.  259,261 ;  23  Am. 
Rep.  270  ;  Heckle  v.  Lurvey,  101  Mass.  344,  ai5;  3  Am.  Rep.  ?M  ;  Aus- 
tin V.  Cox,  118  Mass.  58,  60  ;  Austin  v.  Wilson,  4  Cush.  27.3,  275  ;  Miller 
r'.  t^weitz('r,  22  Mich.  391,  3)5;  Burt  v.  McBaiji,  29  Mich.  260,  262; 
Riccl  V.  Mueller,  41  Mich.  214,  2!.'^ ;  Brazil  v.  Moran,  8  Minn.  2.36,  240  ; 
Dailey  v.  Houston,  .58  Mo.  3(51,  .■«7 ;  Cram  v.  Dudkv,  28  N.  H.  5.37, 
Ml ;  Whitman  v.  Belano,  6  N.  IT.  543,  545  ;  Gove  v.  Farmers,  48  N.  H. 
41,  43  ;  2  Am.  Rep.  ir,8  ;  Carlcton  v.  Haywood,  49  N.  II.  314,  318  ;  Scott 
V.  Gamble,  9  N.  .1.  Eq.  218,  238 ;  Kowing  v.  Manly,  49  N.  Y.  192,  198 ; 
57  Barb.  3;i9,  4s:! ;  10  Am.  Hep.  .346  ;  Cassin  v.  Delany,  38  N.  Y.  178, 179  ; 
Matthews  V.  Fiestel,  2  Smith,  E.  J).  90,  91  ;  Barnes  v.  Harris,  Busb. 
1.5,  17;  Cox  V.  Hoffman,  4  Dev.  <ft  B.  180, 1R2  ;  Clark  r.  Boyer,  32  Ohio 
St.  299,  311 ;  30  Am.  Rep.  .593 ;  Fowler  v.  Chichester,  26  Ohio  St.  9, 14  ; 
Coolidge  V.  Parrls,  8  Ohio  St.  591,  5;)7;  Keen  v.  H.irtman,  48  Pa.  St. 
497,  499;  MofTit  v.  Commonw.  5  Pa.  St.  359,  366  ;  JIcKeown  v.  Johnson, 
1  McCord,  .578,  .579 ;  10  Am.  li'c.  698;  Moon  v.  Henderson,  4  Desaus. 
Eq.  4.59,  461  ;  McQueen  v.  F\ilffham,  27  Tex.  463,  467  ;  Tabb  v.  Boyd,  4 
Call,  4.53,  457  ;  Roadcap  v.  Sipe,  6  (4ratt.  213,  217 ;  Jackson  v.  KirbV,  .37 
Vt.  448,4.53;  Woodward  v.  Barnes,  46  Vt.  332,  336;  14  Am.  Rep.  626; 
post,  ToKTS  OF  Maukikd  Womex. 

17  Head  v.  Briscoe,  5  Car.  <fc  P.  484,  486. 

18  Overholt  v.  Ellswell,  1  Ashm.  200,  202. 

19  See  Taylor  v.  Green,  8  Car.  &  P.  316,  318. 

20  Liverpool  v.  Fairhurst,  9  Ex.  422  ;  Andrews  v.  Ormsbee,  11  Mo. 
400,  402  ;  Carleton  r.  Haywood,  4!)  N.  II.  314,  320  ;  Keen  )'.  Hartman,  48 
Pa.  St.  497,  499  ;  Barnes  f.  Harris,  Busb.  1.5,  17  ;  Woodward  v.  Barnes, 
46  Vt.  3:i2,  336 ;  14  Am.  Rep.  626  ;  p-tst,  ?  368. 

21  Woodward  v.  Barnes,  46  Vt.  332,  336 ;  14  Am.  Rep.  626  ;  sripra, 
n.  20. 

22  Andrews  r.  Ormsbee,  11  Mo.  400,  402;  Carleton  v.  Haywood,  49 
N.  11.  314,  320. 

23  Bob"  V.  Frowner,  18  Ala.  89,  95 ;  McCreedy,  1  Tuck.  .374,  :?76 ; 
Mofflt )'.  Commonw.  5  Pa.  St.  3.59,  :?66 ;  Moon  r.  Henderson,  4  Desaus. 
Eq.  4.59,  461  ;  Knox  v.  Picket,  4  Desaus.  Eq.  92,  93  ;  Tabb  v.  Boyd,  4 
Call,  453,  457. 

24  Hindsi'.  Jones,  48Me.  ."US,  349. 

25  Ball  V.  Bennett.  21  Ind.  427,  428;  Marshall  v.  Oakes,  .51  Me.  308, 
30);  Miller  v.  Swcitzer,  22  Mi<-h.  391,  .395;  Brazil  >:  ]\l(iran,  8  Minn.  236, 
240;  Dailey?'.  Houston,  .5'*  Mo.  361,  367;  Carlct(Hi  r.  Havwood,  49 
N.  H.  314,  318  ;  Cassin  v.  Delany,  .38  N.  Y.  178,  17!! ;  Park  v.  Hopkins,  2 
Biil.  411,  412  ;  Sisco  v.  Cheenev,  Wright,  9, 10 ;  McKeown  r.  .Johnson, 
1  McCord,  .578,  .579  ;  McQueen  v.  Fulgham,  27  Tex.  463,  467  ;  Jackson  v. 
Kirby,  37  Vt.  448,  4.53. 

26  Nolan  v.  Traber,  49  Md.  460,  463  ;  33  Am.  Rep.  277  ;  supra,  n.  25. 

27  Nolan  v.  Traber,  49  Md.  460,  468  ;  33  Am.  Rep.  277  :  Carleton  v. 
Hj,ywood,49  N.  H.  314,  313,  31J  ;  Cassin  v.  Delany,  38  N.  Y.  178,  179. 

H.  &  W.  -  9. 


\  66  CONJUGAL  RIGHTS  A^'D  OBLIGATIOXS.  98 

23    Carleton  v.  Haywood,  43  X.  H.  314, 313,  313. 

23  Handy  v.  Folev,  121  Mass.  'S,\  :si ;  21  Am.  Bep.  270 :  Cassin  >•. 
Delanv.asN.  Y.  178,"li"9;  Ciar.i  r.  Uoy^r,  5J  Oaio  Sc  29»,  Sll;  30  Aia. 
liop.  5(4 

30  Bafeer  r.  TonTig.  44  111.  42,  4«t :  Ball  r.  B?nnett  2t  Ind.  4:7,  42S  ; 
Elders  v.  Bejk,  Is  imva,  »<>.  S,  ;  liecicel  r.  Lurvey,  101  Miis.'^.  'AW,  3*5  ; 
;{  Ana.  Rep.  ;«6  ;  Caiielon  i .  Havwood,  \>  X.  H.  ;il4,  3ls  ;  Kowliig  r. 
Maniv,  4.1  X.  Y.  l.rj,  1.8  ;  10  Am.  Rt.-p.  ;M«;  Matthews  r.  FieUtel,  2 
S  uith,  E.  D.  90,  91 ;  Park  c.  HopK^iii-s.  J  Bail.  411,  412;  Barnes  r.  Har- 
ris, Busb.  15,  IT  ;  McQuj.;i  r,  I'ul^Uaai, 27  Tex.  4jl,4<i7;  p>^^  ToHTS 
OS  3XAHRitU>  WOMliX. 

31  Compare poit,  \\  &:.,  03. 

32  See  Cox  c.  Il3rraian,4  Ecv.  &  B.  ISO,  1S2. 

33  Ferguson  r.  Brooks,  67  Ma.  2-51,  2.55 ;  Park  r.  Hopkins,  2  BaiL  411, 
412. 

34  Ftdu  r.  Fox,  3  Mo.i.  B.  in,  500,  501 ;  prut,  \  67. 

35  Supra,  notes  S,  D. 

33    Compare  Burton,  5  Har.  (DeL)  441, 444 ;  post,  {  C7. 

.17  .S-^e  Fergnson  r.  Collins,  8  Ark.  241,  2.52  ;  Phi'.lips  r.  Richardson, 
4  Marsh.  J.  J.  2i2,  214  ;  Criftie  >-.  Van  Uuyne,  tf  N.  J.  Kq.  351,  2i>«;  Moflit 
r.  Commonw.  5  P.j.  St,  .15 »,  36') ;  Hawk  c.  Harman,  5  Binn.  4:<,  50; 
Allen  r.  M  CuUough,  2  H^isk-  174,  1j4  ;  5  Am.  Rep.  27  ;  teuwart  M.  <& 
I).  U  -t^>  4^ 

33    BaU  r.  Bennett,  21  Ind.  427,  42j  ;  tui>ra,  n.  25^ 

33  Fersruson  r.  Brooks,  r7  M;.  251, 2*3  ;  Park  v.  Hopkins,  2  BaU.  411, 
412  ;  Siaco  i:  C'av;ciiy,  Wri^jh:,  u,  10. 

40  \1ne  r.  Sannd°rs.  5  S-ott.  Xi\  370  ;  Heckle  r.  Lurvv.  101  Mass. 
344,  34-5 ;  lland\-  r.  Foltv.  IJl  Mas.s.  2.5.),  JSl  ;  23  .\m.  Kep.  27u  ;  lOUler 
1'.  Swcitz.-r,  2:  ML-h.  .{>1,  3  ti  ;  Carletoa  v.  Hayw»>oJ,  4j  X.  H.  3:4,  3la  ; 
Roadcap  v.  8ipe,  6  Uralt.  213, 217. 

41  Baker  r.  Young,  44  III.  42,  4S  ;  Roadcap  v.  SIpe,  r.  Gratt.  213,  217. 

42  Carleton  r.  H-ivwoo.l.  41  X.  II.  314,  31);  Kowing  v.  Mu:ily,  49 
X.  Y.  1j2,  IM,  Vjj  ;  10  Am.  Kep.  34t>. 

4l    Coolidge  V.  Parris,  S  Ohio  St.  .5>»,  597 ;  sec  Clark  t-.  Boyer,  :J2  Ohio 

•S:.  2D9,  3»l  ;  p-JSt,  Sl"ITa   BV   M.\£tKIJiD   WOMKX. 

4 1  Ml.  .\C's  HW.  ch.  2-53,  J  J  31,  32 ;  Moss.  P.  S,  1*S2,  p.  8!n,  J  9  ;  Mich. 
R.  S.  1»<2,  it  7714,  «U5J. 

45  Austin  V.  Cox.  11?  Mass.  hi,  60;  Hill  r.  Duncan,  110  Moss.  23S  ; 
Ii:jci  I'.  MueUer,  41  Mich-  214, 215. 

46  Choen  r.  Porter.  B6  Ind.  IM,  ine,  \X> ;  McElfresh  r.  Kirkendall. 
.">  Iowa,  224,  227:  Euilers  v.  Beck.  IS  Iowa,  .SS,  87  ;  Fer?uso;i  r.  Brooks, 
t;.'  '.-le.  2-51. 157  ;  Kowin?  r.  Manlr.  57  Barb.  47.'.  4S.! ;  Baum  r.  Mullen, 
47  X.  V.  577,  57*:  McCready,  1  Tuck.  374.  .$75:  Fowler  r.  Chicester,  28 
Oa-o  St,  3,  14  :  MoQufeeu  v.  Fulgiiam,  27  Tox.  4,i;.  4t;7  ;  ante,  U  15, 16. 

47  Martin  v.  Robson,  65  lU.  129. 130, 13) ;  IG  Xm.  Rep.  57i 
4?    iXIorrLs  i:  Corkhill,  S.  C.  Kan.  Oct.  9, 14*4. 

-;i    McElfresh  v.  Kirkendall,  36  Iowa,  224,  227. 

50  Hawes  Parties  to  Actions,  {  70. 

51  Rowe  V.  Smith,  45  X.  Y.  2»),  2  VJ ;  Baum  r.  K alien,  47  X^.  Y.  577 
579 ;  Fiske  i-.  B-ik y,  51  X.  Y.  150,  IM. 

52  Bowe  V.  Smith,  45  X.  Y.  230,  233. 


99  COXJUGAl.  RIGHTS  AXD   OBLJGATIOXS.  I  67 

53  Fiske  V.  Bailey,  51  X.  Y.  150,  l.>i. 

54  Xusser  v.  Lewis,  X.  Y.  Snp.  Ct.  June  26,  fH  ;  6  X.  Y.  Civ.  Proc.  R. 
135. 

55  Gove  V.  Farmers,  ii  X.  H.  11,  U,  41 ;  2  Am.  Eep.  168. 

2  67.  Conjugal  liability  ia  contract. — There  is  no  lia- 
bility of  a  wife  as  Avife  for  contracts  of  her  husband, 
bai  a  husband  a.j  husband  is  genarally  liable  on  hli 
wife's  contrac!:.?. 

'1.  Postnuptial.  A:  camaion  law  a  wife  could  gener- 
ally' inuko  no  contract  daring  coverture  to  bind  hei-self,^ 
thougli  in  certain  case.i  s!io  could  as  his  agent  bind 
him.''  And  when  under  statute  or  otherwise  she  can 
make  a  valid  contract,  as  husband  he  is  not  liable  ujwn 
it,*  though  he  may  be  as  joint  i^romissor.* 

2.  Antenuptial.  At  common  law  a  husband  takes 
his  wife  with  her  liabilities,"'  and  he  is  liable  on  all  her 
existing  contracts,^  whether  he  is  an  adult  or  an  infant,^ 
and  whether  he  receives  property  with  her  or  not.^  It 
is  only  necessary  to  create  his  liability  that  he  ba  really 
her  husband,*  and  that  the  contract  be  one  which  is 
binding  on  her ;"  he  is  oven  liable  for  necessaries  sup- 
plied liis  infant  \v\1q  ba.'ore  marriage.^^  The  wife  can- 
no:  be  sued  alone  on  such  a  contract,"  nor  can  he;'* 
the  suit  is  against  them  jointly .i'  If  the  suit  is  pend- 
ing when  the  woman  marries,  it  is  revived  against  him 
also ;  ^  if  judgment  has  been  recovered  before  mar- 
riage, execution  may  be  had  against  her  alone,*''  or  by 
scire  facias  it  n\a.y  be  revived  against  him,''  and  the 
proper. y  of  both  of  them  may  be  taken.'^  The  ac- 
knowledgment of  the  debt  made  after  marriage  is  not, 
however,  evidence  against  the  husband.'*  The  hus- 
band's liability  ceases  -with  coverture,  unless  it  has 
been  fixed  by  judgment.*  If  she  dies  after  judgment, 
he  continues  liable ;  ^'  if  he  dies,  his  estate  is  liable.— 
If  not  so  fixe  J,  the  husband's  liability  is  destroyed  by 


I  67  CONJTJGAI.  RIGHTS  A^'D  OBLIGATIONS.  100 

a  divorce  a  vinculo,'^  bj'  his  death/*  or  by  hers.^  But 
marriage  does  not  suspend  or  ds^troy  her  liabili'iy,*  so 
tliat  if  he  dies  she  is  liable,-^  and  if  slie  dies  her  ad- 
ministrator is  liable  to  tho  extent  of  assets,'-®  even  when 
h3  is  her  wdover.-'^  So  she  is  liable  after  divorce  a 
vinculo.^  So  the  Statute  of  Limitations  runs  during 
coverture,^^  and  neither  can  she  so  act  during  coverlure 
as  to  revive  a  promise  wliich  is  barred,^^  nor  can  her 
husband  revive  it  against  her,^  and  one  who  waits 
till  after  coverture  to  sue  usually  loses  his  remedy.'* 
Bankruptcy  of  the  husband  destroyed  at  common  law 
all  right  of  suit  during  coverture,'-*  but  when  she  hai 
separate  property  she  may,  perhaps,  be  proceeded 
against  in  equity.'^  An  antenuptial'"  or  pnistnuptial'^ 
agreement  has  no  etfoct  on  this  conjugal  liability,  nor 
have  married  women's  statutes  which  do  not  expressly 
refer  to  it,'®  though  a  different  rule  is  adopted  in  Illi- 
nois.*" But  in  many  States  a  statute  expressly  destroys 
the  husband's  liability,*'  or  limits  it  to  the  extent  of 
the  property  received  by  him  front  her  by  marriage,** 
or  continues  his  liability  to  this  extent  af.er  her  death.*' 
A  statute  removing  his  liability  may  bo  applicable  to 
existing  marriages,  as  the  wire's  creditor's  right  against 
her  husband  is  not  vested;**  but  a  statute  creating  a 
new  liability  in  the  husband  after  her  death  applies 
only  to  marriages  entered  into  after  its  passage.*'  In 
general,  the  meaning  of  these  statutes  is  plain,  and 
tlioy  are  easily  construed.*^ 

1    Post,  CON'TP.ACTS  OF  Marrikd  Wokex,  {{  355-408. 
1    Leeds  i'.  VaU,  15  Pa.  St.  l<5  ;  p^jgt..  U  85,  98. 

3  Holmes  r.  Reynolds,  r^  Vt.  30. 42.  See  Frieber r.  Stover, 30  Ark. 
7.^7  ;  Franklia  r.  Foster,  20  illeh.  75  ;  Hill  v.  (iooUrich,  46  >'.  H.  41,  42. 

4  Sturmfeltz  r.  Frickev,  43  Mi  569  ;  Holmes  v.  Reynolds,  55  Vt. 
3a  42. 

5  Hawt  t'.  Hariiian,  5  Binn.  43,  50. 

6  Heard  r.  Stamford,  3  P.  Wms.  407,  412 ;  Thomond  v.  Suffolk,  1 
P.  Wms.  4'VJ.  4»>ri :  Cowlf  v  r.  Robertson,  3  Camp.  4'W,  4.'»  ;  Hnmphrevs 
V.  Boyce,  1  iloodv  &  R.140,  HI ;  Evans  r.  Chesttr,  2  Mees.  <t  W.  M7, 


101  CONJUGAL   KI&HTS  AXD   OBLIGATIONS.  g  67 

84S  ;  Sharkes  v.  Bell,  8  Barn.  &  C.  I,  3  ;  O'Brien  v.  Ram,  3  Mod.  186, 
1  *)  ;  Moore  v.  Leseur,  li  Ala.  G06,  610 ;  Gray  v.  Thacker,  4  Ala.  i:«,  i:{7 ; 
ll-irrison  v.  TracK-r,  27  Ark.  i-iS,  2)0  ;  Dav  v.  Mfsslck,  1  Houst.  3:iS,  Gj. 
:m  ;  Burton,  5  Har.  (Dl-1.j  441,  444  ;  Brvan  v.  Doolittle,  iS  Ga.  25?.  25-i ; 
Prest-ott  V.  FLshor.  22  111.  3;)0,  S.kj  ;  H  iwarth  v.  Warmser,  .SS  111.  48,  4J  ; 
Brijwn  V.  Lassell  •,  6  Bla"::f.  147,  148;  3-i  Am.  Dec.  i:i5  ;  Crawford  v. 
Tjrrv,  12  Ind.  4J7  ;  Hetri'-k,  i:{  Ind.  44.  45,46;  Bonnev  v.  Reardin.  6 
Bisli,  34,  40  ;  Morrow  c.  WUtLsi  Is,  10  Mo:i.  B.  411,  412  ;  Fultz  v.  Fox, 
y  Mon.  B.  4  >3,  501 ;  Caldwell  j'.  Dr.ike,  4  Jl.irsh.  J.  J.  246,  247  ;  Hamlin 
V.  Bri  Ige,  2t  Me.  145, 146 ;  Anderson  r.  Smith,  33  Md.  4<i.5,  467  ;  Hawes 
V.  Bigelow,  13  Mass.  3-t4,  3.0;  Dickson  v.  Miller,  19  Miss.  5;»4,  GM  ; 
Boss  t'.  Winners,  6  X.  J.  L.  333;  Barnes  r.  Underwood.  47  X.  Y.  :151, 
:tj4  ;  Roach  v.  Quick,  9  We.id.  T.i,  23J  ;  Anjjel  v.  Feltoii,  8  Johns.  140 ; 
Williams  >•.  Kent,  15  Wond.  SPO,  :«>1 ;  Carlton  v.  Jloore,  2  Jones  Eq. 
201,  207  ;  Wilson,  30  Ohio  St.  365,  371 ;  Carl  v.  Wonder,  5  Watts,  97,  98 ; 
Overholt  v.  Ellswell,  1  Ashm.  200  ;  Buckner  r.  .Smvth,  4  Desjius.  Eq. 
371  ;  Jones  v.  Walkup,  5  Sno?d,  135,  138  ;  Parker  v.  Steed,  1  Lea,  20b, 
210  ;  Tavlor  v.  Miller,  2  L-^a,  155,  1>1 ;  Sheppard  i-.  Starke.  3  Munf.  2  ', 
37  ;  Cole  V.  Shurtl;-*T.  41  Vt.  311,  315,  313  ;  Cole  i-.  Seely,  25  Vt.  220,  222 ; 
Farrar  v.  Bessey,  24  Vt.  83,  92 ;  Piatncr  v.  Patchen,  19  Wis.  333,  Sie. 

7  Roach  V.  Quick.  9  Wend.  238, 33j ;  Cole  v.  Seeley,  25  Vt.  220,  222 ; 
60  Am.  Dec.  2.53. 

8  Heard  v.  Stamfor  1,  3  P.  Wm.  40i,  412  ;  supra,  a.  6. 

9  Cowley  v.  Robertson,  3  Camp.  438, 433 ;  Overholt  v.  Ellswell,  1 
Ashm.  200. 

10  Caldwell  v.  Drake,  4  Marsh.  J.  J.  246,  247. 

11  Bonney  v.  Reardin,  6  Bush,  34,  40;  Anderson  t>.  Smith,  33  Md. 
465,467 

12  Hamlin  v.  Bridge,  24  Me.  145, 147. 

13  Gage  i'.  Reed,  15  Johns.  403. 

14  Gray  v.  Thacker,  4  Ala.  136,  137 ;  Moore  v.  Leseur,  18  Ala.  606, 
610  ;  Angel  v.  F^'lton,  8  JohTis.  14 ) ;  Carl  v.  Wonder.  5  Watts,  97,  98  ; 
Platner  v.  Patchin,  19  "*Vis.  3;J;f,  Xio. 

15  Parker  v.  Steed,  1  Lea,  20G,  210. 

16  Evans  r.  Chester,  2  Mees.  &  W.  847,  818 ;  Cooper  f.  Hunchin,  4 
East,  521,  522, 

17  Taylor  v.  Millar,  2  Lea,  153, 154.  See  O'Brien  v.  Ram,  3  Mod.  186, 
187, 190 ;  Haines  c.  Corliss,  4  Moss.  0.5J. 

18  Benyon  r.  Jones,  15  Mees.  &  W.  566,  569  ;  Taylor  v.  Miller,  2  Lea, 
1»!,  155. 

19  Brown  v.  Lass»ll9,  6  BHokf.  147. 148  ;  3S  .\m.  D<»c.  1.^5;  Ross  i-. 
Winners,  6  X.  J.  L.  366  :  Sheppard  v.  Starke,  3  Munf.  2J,  .TT  :  ante,  i  'Jl. 

20  Fultz  1'.  Fox,  9  Mon.  B.  4^*,  .=500,  501 ;  Bryan  v.  Doolittle,  33  Ga. 
2.W,  25S ;  Burton,  5  Har.  (Del.)  441,  444. 

21  Bryan  v.  Doollttls,  33  Ga.  255,  2.57. 

22  Burton,  5  Har.  (Del.)  441,  444. 

23  WUson,  30  Ohio  St.  365,  371  ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ?  448. 

24  Fultz  V.  Fox,  9  Mon.  B.  499,  500,  .501 ;  Chapline  r.  Moore,  7  Mon. 
1.50  ;  Mallorv  c.  Vandenhevden,  3  Barb.  Ch.  9.  21 ;  Curlton  v.  Moore,  2 
Jones  Eq.  JOl,  207,  20J. 

25  Heard  v.  Stamford,  3  P.  Wm.  409,  411 ;  Thomond  v.  Suffolk,  1  P. 
Wm.  462,  469;  Brvan  r.  Doolittle,  38  Ga.  2.55,  2.58  ;  Williams  v.  Kent.  15 
Wend.  360,  362 ;  Jon-s  t:  Walkup,  5  Sneed,  135, 138  ;  Cole  v.  ShurtL-ff, 
41  Vt.  311,  315,  316  ;  Stswart  M.  &  D.  {  468. 


2  68  CONJUGAL    RIGHTS   AND   OBLIGATIONS.  102 

26  Fultx  V.  Fox,  a  Mon.  M.  499,  500,  501  ;  Gage  v.  Heed,  15  Johns. 
■KKJ ;  Mallory  v.  Vaiiderlieyden,  3  Barb.  CU.  D,  :l-i. 

27  Parker  v.  Steed,  1  Lea,  206,  210.  See  Hawk  v.  Hariniiii,  5  Blnu. 
43,50. 

28  Huniphrev  r.  Bovop,  1  >roodv  &  B.  HO,  141  ;  Mallorv  v.  Vaii- 
derheyden,  3  Barb.  Ch.  !•,  23;  Jones  i.  Walkup,  5  Saeed,  13.5,  I3s. 

29  Day  v.  Mcssifk  1  Housr.  32-i,  3.30 ;  Jones  i'.  Walkup,  5  Sneed,  135, 
139 ;  Holrues,  2s  Vt.  7().5,  767,  703. 

30  See  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ?  430,  n.  19. 

31  Moore  v.  Lesenr,  is  Ala.  606,  fill  ;  Kline  v.  Giithart,  2  Pa.  St.  490  ; 
Hawk  V.  Harmaii,  5  Binii.  43,  .50  ;  Farrur  i'.  Bessey,  24  Vt.  89,  92. 

32  Moore  v.  Leseur,  18  Ala.  606,  612. 

33  Farrar  v.  Bessey.  24  Vt.  89,  92. 

34  Sec  Hawk  r.  Harman,  5  Binn.  43,  50. 

35  Miles  r.  Williams,  10  Mod.  ICO,  243 ;  MaUory  v.  Vanderheyden,  3 
Barb.  Ch.  9,  22. 

36  Dickson  v.  Miller,  19  Ma.ss.  .5!M,fi02,  6(M.  See  Hamllu  v.  Bridge, 
24  Me.  145, 146.    Consult  Jones  t.  Gla.ss,  48  Iowa,  :i45. 

37  Harrison  V.  Trader,  27  Ark.  2S8,  290;  Christian  v.  Hanks,  22  Ga, 
1Z5  ;  Taylor  v.  Miller,  2  Lea,  15;$,  154  ;  Powell  i:  Manson,  22  Gratt.  177  ; 
Stewart  M.  &  D.  ??  32,  43. 

38  Harrison  v.  Trader,  27  .\rk.  288,  290 ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  i  181. 

39  Conner  v.  Berrv,  46  111.  370,  372  ;  Berley  v.  IVimpacher,  5  Duer, 
183;  Alexander  i:  Morgan,  31  Ohio  St.  .')41  ;  Fowler  r.  Chichester,  26 
Ohio  St.  9;  Plainer  r.  Patchin,  19  Wis.  3:«,  3:!6  ;  ante,  U  15,  16. 

40  Howarth  v.  Warmser,  58  111.  4>i,  43.  See  Dickson  v.  Miller,  19 
Miss.  594,  00.3. 

41  See  Ala.  Code,  1876,  ?2704;  Cal.  Civ.  Code,  ?I70;  Wood  v.  Or- 
ford,  52  Cal.  412  ;  .Md.  .\cts  1880,  H  31.  32  ;  X.  C.  Kev.  1873,  p.  590 ;  Pa. 
Purd.  Dig.  1.S72,  p.  Kior.. 

42  Colo.  R.  S.  1S77,  g  17.>1. 

43  Colo.  R.  S.  IS77,  ?  1755;  Brvan  v.  Doollttle,  3S  Ga.  2.»,  277;  Wil- 
liams V.  Kent,  15  Wend.  .360,  361. 

44  Fultz  r.  Fox.  9  Mon.  B.  4(9,  .'iio,  501  ;  rinte,  ??  21-22  ;  hut  not  to  a 
suit  already  brouijht :   Clawson  c.  Hutchinson,  II  S.  C.  323. 

45  Bryan  v.  Doolittle,  .38  Ga.  2.55,  25S. 

46  See  Conlon  v.  Monro. 9  I.  R.  C.  L.  190  ;  Wood  r.  Orford,  hZ  Cal.  412; 
Bryan  t'.  Doolittle.  3S  Ga.  2.5.5,  2.57  ;  Renuecker  c.  Scott,  4  Greene,  185  ; 
Cannon  i>.  (iranthani,  45  Miss.  8H  ;  Davis  v.  Wilkiiisor\.  48  Miss.  5s5  ; 
Fultz  !\  Fox,  9  Mon.  B.  4>19,  .500;  Williams  v.  Kent,  15  Wend.  360,362  ; 
Clawson  v.  Hutchinson,  11  S.  C.  323. 

I  68.  Conjugal  liability  in  crime.  —  A  wife  is  never 
liable  for  the  crime  of  her  liusband,  but  a  Imsbaiid  is 
liable  for  all  crimes  of  his  wife  committed  in  his  pres- 
ence or  witli  liis  knoM'ledgc  and  consent. ^  As  the  case 
may  be,  he  is  liable  as  principal,^  or  as  accessory,*  and 
alone*  or  jointly"  with  her.  Married  women  .statutes 
have  not  changed  this  liability  of  liis.^ 


103  CONJUGAL   RIGHTS   AND   OBLIGATIONS.  ^  68 

1.  If  it  appears  onl}'  that  a  criminal  act  Avas  done  by 
the  wife  in  the  i>resence  of  her  liusband,  slie  is  deemed 
to  liave  acted  under  his  coercion,*  as  slie  is  under  Iiis 
power;"  and  lie  is  liable'"  alone. '^  She  is  in  his  pres- 
ence, though  he  is  not  in  sight,  if  he  is  near  by  and  she 
is  acting  under  his  supervision.'- 

2.  If  it  appears  that  a  criminal  act  was  done  by  the 
wife  in  the  presence  of  her  husband,  but  of  her  own 
free  will,  he  is  jointly  liable  with  her,'^  for  it  is  his 
right "  and  his  duty  '^  to  prevent  her  from  doing  wrong, 
with  force  1*  if  need  ho.  Probably  his  bona  fide  en- 
deavors to  prevent  the  act  to  the  extent  of  his  ability 
would  be  a  defense  ; "  of  course  if  he  aids  and  abets  her 
he  is  liable.'^ 

3.  If  it  appears  that  a  criminal  act  was  committed  by 
the  wife  out  of  the  presence  of  her  husband,  but  with 
his  concurrence  or  assent  he  is  liable,'"  just  as  any  one 
is  liable  for  the  acts  of  his  agent.-" 

4.  If  it  appears  that  a  criminal  act  was  committed  bj'' 
the  wife  out  of  the  presence  of  her  husband,  and  with- 
out his  knowledge  or  assent,  he  is  not  liable  at  all.^^ 

But  a  liusband  cannot  be  guiltj'  of  conspiring  with 
his  wifc,^'^  unless  the  conspiracy  was  consummated 
before  their  marriage,^*  or  there  are  other  co-conspira- 
tors.'^* 

1  See  Com.  x'.  Barry.  11.5  Mass.  146 ;  2  Green  Cr.  R.  285,  notes  ; 
post,  Crimks  op  Makkikd  Womkx. 

2  See  fully  Desty  Cr.  L.  H  15, 16, 17  ;  and  other  works  on  criminal 
law. 

.■5    llensly  v.  State,  52  Ala.  10.  12  ;  1  Am.  Cr.  R.  465. 

4  Reg.  V.  Manning,  2  Car.  &  K.  'Mi.    See  State  v.  Potter, 42  Vt.  495. 

5  Com.  V.  Wood,  'J7  Mass.  225,  228. 

6  Goldstein  v.  People,  82  X.  V.  231,  2:i2. 

7  Com.  V.  Pratt,  126  Mass.  462,  463  ;  Com.  v.  Wood,  97  Mass.  225, 
229  ;  Com.  v.  Barry,  115  Mass.  146  ;  2  Green  Cr.  K.  285,  287,  notes. 

8  Ilenslv  )'.  State,  52  .\la.  10,  12  :  1  Am.  Cr.  R.  465;  see  Desty  Cr. 
L.  i  Ui<t  :  Htf.x  i:  Hamilton.  1  Leach,  ."548  ;  Edwards  v.  State  27  Ark. 
4!i:!:  State  ?•.  Banks,  48  liul.  197;  Marshall  v.  Oakes,  51  Me.  30S.  :*)9; 
Nolan  )•.  Traber,  49  Md.  4ei0  ;  33  Am.  Rep.  277  ;  Com.  v.  Neal,  10  Mass. 


gg  69-70        CONJUGAL   BIGHTS   AND   OBLIGATIONS.  104 

152  ;  1  Lead.  Crim.  C.  91  ;  6  Am.  Dec.  105  ;  Com.  v.  Barry,  115  Mass.  146  ; 
2  Green  Cr.  R.  2S5,  2H7,  notes;  State  v.  Bentz,  11  Mo.  27;  Haines  v. 
.State,  .^5  N.  H.  2()7  :  rjolilstein  r.  People,  Hi  N.  Y.  2:51,  2:«;  State  v. 
Williams,  &5  N.  V.  '■'■'M;  Davis  r.  Stiite,  15  Ohio,  72;  45  Am.  Dec.  559; 
Citv  V.  Vau  Roveii,  2  MeCord.  4)).")  ;  Tlil  v.  Com.  6  Gratt.  706;  State  v. 
Potter,  42  Vt.  4<)5  ;  Miller  v.  State,  25  Wis.  :«4. 
9    Ante,  ??  38,  60. 

10  State  )'.  Cleaveo,  .59  Me.  2;J8,  302 ;  8  Am.  Rep.  422,  490.  See  Hens- 
ley  V.  State,  .52  Ala.  10,  12;  1  Am.  Cr.  R.  4fi5 ;  Edwards  v.  State,  27 
Ark.  49.J;  1  Green  Cr.  R.  741;  Com.  v.  Barry,  2  (Jreen  Cr.  B.  2S5, 
notes. 

11  .She  is  liable  also  in  capital  cases,  see  post,  CKr«E.s  of  Married 

WOMEX. 

12  Com.  V.  Ner.l,  10  Mass.  1.52;  1  Lead.  Crim.  C.  91  ;  see  Re^.  v. 
Boobcr,  4  Cox  C.  C.  272  ;  Rex  v.  Archer,  1  Moodv  C.  C.  14:i ;  State  r. 
Nelson,  ."»  Me.  :«•;  Com.  v.  Munsev,  112  Muss.  2s7.  2S!» ;  State  v.  Wil- 
liams, 65  .N.  t  .  :<«H  ;  Davis  tu  State,  15  Ohio  St.  72  ;  .State  r.  Parkerson, 
1  Strob.  16);  riil  r.  Com.  6 Gratt.  706. 

IS  .Stat(>  V.  Cleaves,  51  Me.  2.)S,  SOI ;  8  Am.  Rep.  422,  4T0  ;  Goldstein 
V.  People,  S2  N.  Y.  2:{1,  2:«.  See  Reg.  r.  Insrram,  1  Salk.  :iS4  ;  Somer- 
vllle,  I  .And.  lOJ :  Phillips,  7  Moii.  B.  268  ;  State  r.  Nelsoti,  29  Me.  :<29  J 
Com.  v.  •l'rv.'n.9':i  iliiss.  442;  State  v.  Bentz,  II  Mo.  27  ;  State  v.  Par- 
kerson, 1  Strob.  169. 

14  Ante,  ??  60,  62,  63. 

15  Com.  >:  Woo  1, 97  Mass.  225, 229  ;  Com.  v.  Barrv,  115  Mass.  146  ;  2 
Green  Cr.  R.  28.5,  2S7. 

16  Com.  V.  Barry,  2  (Jreen  Cr.  R.  285,  287,  notes  ;  ante,  §  6.3. 

17  See  Com.  r.  Van  Stone,  97  Mass.  54S;  King  v,  Stapleton,  Jebb 
C.  C.  93. 

IS  Goldstein  »•.  People,  S2  N.  Y.  231,  2.33.  See  Reg.  v.  Manning,  2 
Car.  &  K.  !KW  ;  Rex  v.  Morris,  2  Leach,  1096;  Ross  i".  Com.  2  .Mon.  B. 
417  ;  State  '•.  Brown,  31  Me. -520  ;  Com.  v.  Nichols,  10  Met.  2.59;  Schmidt 
V.  State,  14  M(i.  137  ;  State  e.  Dow,  21  Vt.  484. 

19  Williamson  7-.  State,  16  .\Iu.  431,  436. 

20  State  c.  Colby,  55  N.  H.  72,  73 ;  State  v.  Roberts;  .>5  N.  IL  483, 
485 ;  j}i)st.  I  vx 

21  State  »'.  Baker,  71  Mo.  475,  476.  See  Com.  v.  Welch, 97  Mass.  .593, 
594;  Com.  r.  Munsev,  112  M;i.ss.  287,  2S9  ;  Handy  v.  Foley,  121  Mass. 
259,  261  ;  2:$  .Am.  Rep.  270. 

22  People  v.  Mather.  4  Wend.  229 ;  21  Am.  Dec- 1'22  ;  Com.  v.  Man- 
son,  2  Ashni.  31. 

23  Rex  )'.  Robinson,  1  Leach,  .37. 

24  Rex  I'.  Loiker.  5  Esp.  107  ;  Com.  v.  Wood, 7  Bos.  L.  R.  58 ;  Com. 
t'.  Mansoii,2  Aslim.  31. 

§  69.  Other  personal  rights  and  liabilities. — The  hus- 
band must  p'Jierally,  except  under  express  statutes,  be 
joined  in  all  suits  in  whicli  his  wife  is  a  party.' 

1    Brown  r.  Kemper,  27  Md.  606,  672  ;  ante,  ??  66,  fi7. 

I  70.     Property  rights  and  liabilities.  —  (These  are  dis- 


105  CONJUGAL   RIGHTS  AND   OBLIGATIONS.         §f  71-73 

cussed    under    the    title   "Estates    of    Husband    and 

Wiie."i) 

1    Pmt,  11  135-330. 

^  71.  Bights  and  obligations  as  to  cMldren.  —  (These 
are  discussed  incidentally  iu  Stewart  on  Marriage  and 
Divorce.') 

1    Stewart  M.  <fe  D.  \i  400-107. 


Art.   II.     Actions  Arising  from  Conjugal  Riuhts 
AND  Obligations. 

i  72.  Suits  for  restitution  of  conjugal  rights. 

I  7-3.  Suit.s  for  divorce. 

'  ?  74.  Suits  for  miiiiitenance. 

?  7.5.  Writs  of  .VH/ijj?i>rti'j7,  etc. 

?  7fi.  Suits  of  wlff  in  which  husband  is  joined,  etc 

i  77.  Suits  for  wrongs  to  spouse. 

i  78.  Suits  for  enticement  or  liarboriiig. 

i  79.  .Suits  for  criminal  conversation. 

i  SO.  Suits  under  civil  damage  act. 

?  81.  Suits  for  necessaries. 

?  72.  Suits  for  restitution  of  conjugal  rights.  —  If  one 
six>use  wrongfully  left  the  other  tiio  latter  could  for- 
merly bring  suit  in  the  ecclesiastical  courts  to  compel 
cohabitation,^  this  Avas  called  a  suit  for  the  restitution  of 
conjugal  rights.''  Such  a  suit  may  still  be  Ijrought  in 
England,'  but  is  unlvnown  in  the  United  States*  where 
cohabitation  cannot  be  directlj''  enforced.^ 

1  Orme,  2  Add.  Ec.  R.  382  ;  2  Eng.  Ec.  R.  :&1,  Sm. 

2  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ?  17.5 ;  1  Bisli.  M.  &  D.  JJ  171,  172  ;  mUe,  I  59. 

3  Firebrace,  Law  R.  4  P.  D.  63. 

4  Wostlal^e,  34  Ohio  St.  62.,  628  ;  discussed  cases  collected  iu 
Stewart  M.  &  I).  |  17.5. 

5  Baugh,  37  Mich.  59,  62. 

I  73.  Suits  for  divorce.  —  (i<'ully  discussed  in  Stewart 
on  Marriage  and  Divorce.) 


\^(  75-76      COMJUGAL   RIGHTS   AND   OBLIGATIONS.  106 

g  74.  Suits  for  maintenance.  —  In  uiost  of  tlie  States  a 
vdle  may  i)iooeed  agaiust  her  husband  in  equity  to 
make  him  svipport  her.i 

1    Stewart  M.  &  D.  5  17;i,  full  discussion. 

g  75.  Writs  ot  supplicavit,  etc.  —  Under  the  common 
law,  on  the  application  of  a  wife  wiio  showed  lierself  to 
be  in  danger  from  lier  husband,  a  court  of  equity  would 
grant  licr  a  writ,  called  a  writ  of  suppUcavit,  requiring 
her  husband  to  give  security  to  treat  her  properly. ^ 
This  writ  is  unknown  in  the  United  States,^  where  an 
ordinary  boud  to  keep  the  peace  serves  all  its  purjioses.^ 
Under  statute  a  wife  if  deserted  by  her  husbaiul  may 
have  a  writ  for  the  protection  of  her  earnings  from  him 
in  case  of  his  return.* 

1  Kinsr »'.  Lee,  2  Lev.  I2S  ;  Tlearl,  3  Atk.  rA'  :  C'laverinsr,  2  P.  Vi'ms. 
202;  Uovmioii,  Ami),  fil;  King,  2  Ves.  .578;  Amb.  XW;  Heyn,  2  Ves. 
.fe  B.  1S2:  l>obl)vii,:!  Vc-.s.  A  B.  ISH  ;  Tuaiiicliitr,  1  Jacob  &  W.  :WS; 
2  Story  Eq.  'i  U2:! ;  2  Bisli.  M.  &  D.  ?  :«2. 

2  Adams,  100  Mass.  3G.5,  Sfin,  372  ;  1  Am.  Rep.  3  ;  Cold,  2  Johns.  Ch. 
141.  142. 

3  Cold,  2  Johns.  Ch.  141,142. 

4  C'lrerill,  1  .S\v!ih.  &  T.  22-5;  Aldridsjp.  I  .Sw.ib.  &  T.  SS ;  Thomp- 
son, 1  .Swab.  &  T.  2:ii ;  Mason  v.  Mitchi'll,  :t4  i^w  J.  K.v.  6S  ;  Sharp, ;« 
Law  J.  M.  C.  152  ;  llall,  27  Law  J.  M.  C.  lU. 

^  76.  Suits  of  wife  in  which  husband  is  joined  and  suits 
of  husband  by  marital  right.  —  A  husband  is  generally 
liable  to  be  sued  with  his  wife  on  her  antenuptial  con- 
tracts,^ and  for  her  torts,-  and  to  be  i)rosecuted  with 
her  for  lier  crimes;*  he  usually  sues  with  her  on  her 
contracts,*  and  for  injuries  to  her,^  in  fact  he  is  com- 
monly joined  vrith  her  in  all  her  suits.^  He  is  also  lia- 
ble alone  as  hiisband  for  her  wrongs  done  in  his 
presence ; "  and  has  a  right  to  sue  alone  for  any  in- 
fringement of  his  conjugal  rights^  to  her  services, 
society,  alfection,  and  lidelity :  hence  arise  rights  of 
action  against  one  who  injures  his  wife,^  or  entices  her 


107  CONJUGAL   RIGHTS   AXl)   OBLIGATIONS.  §  77 

or  harbors  her  away  from  hiin,'"  or  has  sexual  inter- 
course with  lier." 

1  Heard  v.  Stamford,  3  P.  Wms.  407, 412  ;  ante,  §  67. 

2  Ferguson  v.  Collins,  8  Ark.  241,  252  ;  ante,  ?  G6. 

3  Goldstine  v.  People,  82  X.  Y.  231,  233  ;  mite,  I  G8. 

4  Titus  V.  Ash,  24  X.  H.  :i28  ;  j^nst,  ??  176,  183. 

5  Craddock  v.  Goodwin,  .54  Tex.  .>S1  ;  post,  ?  176. 

6  Hawes  Parties,  J  63  :  post,  §§  432,  43;J. 

7  Ball  V.  Bennett,  21  Ind.  427,  428 ;  anU,  fj  66,  68. 

8  Ante,  ??  .58,  53,  60,  62,  65. 

9  Pollard  r.  X.  .1.  101  V.  S.  223,  244  ;  post,  \  77. 

10  Burnett  v.  Burkhead,  21  Ark.  77,  79  ;  post,  ?  78. 

11  Norton  v.  Warner,  9  Conn.  172,  174|;  post,  \  79. 

g  77.  Suits  for  wrongs  to  spouse.  —  1.  Except  under 
some  such  statute  as  a  civil  damage  act,'  a  wife  has  no 
right  of  action  for  injuries  to  her  liusband,^  thougli  she 
has  perliaps  a  right  of  action  against  one  who  entices 
him  away.*  But  out  of  an  injury  to  a  wife  may  arise 
two  actions  in  favor  of  her  husband*  —  one  in  tlie  right 
of  tlie  wife*  in  which  tlie  husband  and  wife  sue  jointly 
for  the  direct  injuries  to  her,^  the  other  in  the  right  of 
the  husband  in  which  the  husband  sues  alone  for  con- 
sequential damages  to  liimself.'  Thus,  Mhere  through 
the  neglect  of  a  city  a  wife  was  much  injured  in  body 
she  and  her  husband  brought  one  suit  for  lier  suffering, 
etc.,  and  recovered,*  and  then  her  husband  brought 
another  suit  for  his  expenses  arising  from  her  illness, 
his  loss  of  her  society  and  services,  and  his  OAvn  loss  of 
time,  and  also  recovered."  Since  these  suits  are  in  dif- 
ferent rights'"  they  cannot  be  joined,''  thougli  amis- 
joinder  is  cured  by  verdict.'^  The  former  abates  on 
the  deatli  of  the  wife,'^  survives  to  her,'*  and  belongs 
to  her  after  absolute  divorce  ;'*  the  latter  is  not  affected 
by  divorce,'*  or  by  the  death  of  the  wife,'^  but  abates 
on  the  death  of  tlie  husband,"*  except  where  the  right 
to  sue  in  the  former  action  is  by  statute  given  to  the 


§  77  COXJUaAL  RIGHTS  AND  OBLIGATIONS.  108 

Avife  alone, 18  the  husband  may  discharge  it,2o  controls 
the  suit,^'  and  owns  the  damages.^  Recoverj'  in  one 
suit  is  conclusive  {res  adjudicata)  as  to  tlie  right  to 
recover  in  the  other,^  but  no  damages  can  be  allowed 
in  the  one  wlii';h  are  allowable  in  the  other :  thus,  in 
the  joint  suit  no  recovery  can  be  had  for  special  dam- 
age to  the  husband'-'*  or  for  loss  of  services  which  were 
the  husband's,"'  and  in  the  sole  suit  no  recovery  can  be 
liad  for  the  pain  and  suflfering  of  the  wife'*  or  for 
expenditures  which  she  inade;^'  and  when  punitive 
damages  have  been  allowed  in  one  suit  this  should  be 
considered  in  estimating  the  damages  in  the  other.^s  In 
the  liusband's  suit  lie  recovers,  except  in  cases  of  mal- 
ice,■''  and  actions  for  crim.  con.,^'^  only  actual  damages ^^ 
for  his  loss  of  the  services  and  society  of  his  wife,^'^  the 
expenses  to  him  naturally  resulting  from  the  injury  to 
her,*3  the  cost  of  the  necessary  employment  of  extra 
help,^*  and  the  loss  of  his  own  time;*^  but  nothing  for 
liis  distress  of  mind  caused  bj'^  her  suffering,  »•'  and 
nothing  for  her  death,*'  except  by  statute,**  but  only 
for  his  loss  up  to  the  time  of  her  death.*"  The  fact  that 
the  parties  were  at  the  time  of  the  injury  living  apart 
goes  only  in  mitigation  of  damages.*" 

2.  As  to  particular  suits :  For  slander  of  the  wife, 
luisband  and  wife  sue  jointly,  if  the  words  are  action- 
able per  se;*^  but  the  husband  alone  if  they  are  not,** 
iuid  always  for  any  special  damage  ;  **  but  the  fact  that 
words  not  slanderous  per  se  made  the  wife  ill,  gives  no 
one  a  right  of  action.**  Husband  may  sue  alone  for 
careless  transportation  of  his  wife  for  which  he  paid,*^ 
and  jointly  with  her  for  failure  to  transport  her.**  He 
may  alone  sue  a  druggist  for  secretly  selling  his  wife 
laudanum  to  his  damage.*'  Separate  consideration  is 
given  to  a  husband's  suits  for  enticement  *8  and  ci*imi- 
nal  conversation.*^ 


109  CONJUGAL  RIGHTS  AND  OBLIGATIONS.  §  77 

For  an  injury  to  the  wife  before  marriage  husband 
and  wife  sue  jointly,^"  and  the  damages,  if  recovered 
during  coverture,  go  to  tlie  husband.^' 

1.    P04<,  ?.S0. 

2  See  Carey  v.  Berkshire,  1  CiisU.  4'o,  478;  Logan,  77  Iiul.  538; 
Woods  t).  Coeuan,  44  Iowa,  rj.        ,    ,  ^  j^, 

3  Post,  §  78.  •    ■  , 

4  Brockbank  t.  Whitehaven,  7  H»rl.  <fe  N.*  8Sir838f  Huiftter'r. 
Ogdeii,  ai  Up.  C;a»,  Q.  B.  Vf2,  140;  Pxillafd  .;■.  N..J.  101  U.  S.  223,  244  ; 
yiiller  %K  Naugatank,  21  C:onn.  557,  571;  Ruder  r.  Plirdv,  41  Ill.'279.  • 
287;  Long  t'.  Morrison,  l-i  Jiid.  5!i5.  5y6;.  AJtdeMon,  11,  Bush,  327,  3:»  ; 
Hooper  v.  Haskell,  5fi  Me.  251,  2.5:*;  Laugbliii  r:  £atoii,  54  >K'.  15fi, 
159;  Michigan  v.  Coleman,  28  .Mich.  440,  442;  Smitii  r.  St.  JosepJ>,  55 
Mo.  4.T6,  458;  17  Am.  Rep.  660;  Klein  r.  Jewett,  26  N.  J.  Eq.  474,  480: 
Lewis  i>.  Baboock,  18  Jolins.  443,  444;  Crump  v.  MeKav,  8  Jones,  :{2, 
33 ;  Whitcomb  v.  Barre,  47  Vt.  I4S,  151 ;  Lindsey  v.  Danville,  46  Vt.  144, 
148  ;  Wheeling  v.  Trowbridge,  5  W.  Va.  '.ib^i,  354  ;  Meese  v.  Fonddu  Lac,  ■ 
48  Wis.  323,  328. 

5  Ruder  v.  Purdy,  41  111.  279,  287  ;  Michigan  v.  Colemau,  28  Mich. 
440, 442. 

6  Langhlin  ?'.  Eaton,  .M  Me.  1.5fi.  158  ;  Saltmarsh  v.  Cardin,  51  N.  H, 
71,  73 ;  post,  Sl'its  ok  Makkied  Womkn. 

7  See  Baker  r.  Bolton,  1  Camp.  493;  Cross  v.  Guthery,  2'  Root, 
90,92;  1  Am.  Dec.  61  ;  Fuller  v.  Naugatank,  21  Conn.  5.57,  571  ;  Ruder 
V.  Purdy,  41  111.  279,  2S7;  Roger?  r.  Smith,  17  Ind.  323;  Long  v.  Mor- 
rison, 14  Ind.  595,  596:  McKiniiey  v.  Western.  4  Iowa,  420  ;  Tuttie  (i.  • 
Chicago,  42  Iowa,  518,  521  ;.  Neumeister  v.  Dubuque,  47  Iowa,  465; 
Mewhirter  v.  Halten,  42  Iowa,  288,289;  Mowry  v.  Chenev,  43  Iowa, 
(JOT;  Eden  r.  Lexington,  14  Mou.  B.  204;  Hooper  v.  Haskell,  5fi  Me. 
251,2.52;  Barnes  ?'.  Hurd,  11  Mass.  69;  Ffllebrown  v.  Hoar,  124  Ma,ss. 
580,  585;  Berger  v.  Jacobs,  21  Mich.  215  ;  Hvatt  r.  Adams,  16  Mich.  ISO, 
im,  196;  Smith  v.  St.  Joseph,  ,55  Mo.  4.'.6,  4.5S,  459  ;  17  Am.  Rep.  060; 
Beach  v.  Rannev,  2  Hill,  309,  316;  Hoard  v.  Peck,  56  Barb.  202,  206; 
Filer  v.  N.  Y.  49  N.  V.  47  ;  10  Am.  Rep.  :i27 ;  Wattson  v.  N.  V.  .35  N.  Y. 
487;  Phillippi  i'.  Woeff,  14  Abb.  87  :  N.  S.  196;  Crump  v.  McKay,  8 
■Jones,  32,  'M  ;  Lindsev  i<.  Danville,  46  Vt.  144, 147  ;  Meese  v.  Fonddu  Lac, 
48  Wis.  .323,  .328  ;  Kavanaugh  v.  Janesville.  24  Wis.  618,  621  ;  Barnes  v. 
Martin,  15  Wis.  240 ;  Hunt  v.  Winfield,  36  \Vi.s.  154 ;  17  Am.  Itep.  482. 

8  Smith  t'.  St.  Joseph,  4S  Mo.  449. 

9  Smith  V.  St.  Joseph,  55  Mo.  456  ;  17  Am.  Rep.  660. 

10  Ruder  v.  Purdy,  41  111.  279,  287. 

11  Brockbank  v.  Whitehaven, 7  Hurl.  &  N.  8.34,8.38;  Fullerv.  Nau- 
gatank, 21  Conn.  557,  .571  ;  Lewis  v.  Babcock,  18  Johns.  443, 444.  , . 

12  Lewis  V.  Babcock,  18  Johns.  443,  444. 

13  Nocross  V.  Stuart,  .50  Me.  87,  89  ;  Saltmarsh  v.  Cardin, .5;  -N.  H. 
71, 72  ;  .Stroop  ?>.  Swartz.  12  Serg.  &  R.  76.  Except  by  statute :  Gdrrison 
V.  Burden,  40  Ala.  .573  ;  Ea:rl  v.  Pupper,  45  Vt.  27.5,  28:1 

14  Fowler  v.  Frisbee,  3  Conn.  320,  324  ;  Stew'art  M.  <fe  D.  ?  465. ' 

15  Chase,  6  Gray,  157,  159  ;  Gibson,  46  WiSi  449,  .458  ;■  Stewart!  M.  & 
D.  5  448. 

16  See  Dickeman  v.  Graves,  6  Cush.  308,  309;  Stewart  M..  <&  D, 
?  448  ;  post,  il'X 

H.  &  W.  —  ID. 


g  77  CONJUGAL  KIGHTS  AND  OBIilGATIONS.  110 

17  Hyatt  v.  Adams,  16  Mich.  Ifi6,  180,  193.  Full  discussion :  See 
Cross  V.  Guthrey,  2  Koot,  UO,  92  ;  Long  v.  Morrison,  14  Iiid.  5;i5,  596. 

18  Wood  V.  Matthews,  47  Iowa,  409,  410  ;  Ratcliff  v.  Wales,  1  Hill, 
63.    Kxcept  by  statute  :    Cregin  v.  Brooiclyn,  56  How.  Pr.  32,  465. 

19  Michigan  v.  Coleman,  28  Mich.  440,  442. 

20  Long  ?>.  Morrison,  14  Ind.  .59.5,  597  ;  Anderson,  11  Bush,  327,  330  : 
Ballard  u.  Ru.ssell, :«  Me.  196,  197  ;  Southworth  r.  Packard, 7  Mass.  9c, 
96;  Shattuck  v.  Cli'ton,  22  Wis.  142. 

21  Cases  siipi-a,  n.  20  ;  Coolidge  v.  Parris,  8  Ohio  St.  594, 597. 

22  Gibson,  43  Wis.  23,  26  ;  see  Ruder  v.  Purdy,  41  111.  279,  287. 

23  Lindsey  v.  Di^nvfUe,  46  Vt.  144, 147.  . 

24  AVTieeling*.  Trowbridge,  5  W.-Va.'a53,  3.54  :  supra,  n.  7. 

25  Mewhirter  v.  Halten,42  Iowa,  288.  2S9,  291  ;  20  Am.  Rep.  618; 
Tattle  V.  Chicago,  42  Iowa,  518,  521 ;  ante,  i  65. 

26  Hunter  v.  Ogden,  31  Up.  Can.  Q.  B.  132, 140  ;  King  v.  Thompson, 
87  Pa.  St.  365,  .368  ;  30  Am.  Rep.  .J64  :  supra,  Jiotes,^, 5, 6. 

27  Walden  v.  Clark,  50  Vt.  383,  :«5. 

28  Ruder  v.  Purdy,  41  111.  279,  287. 

29  See  Ruder  v.  Purdy,  41  111.  279, 287  ;  Hyatt  v.  Adams,  16  Mtcb. 
180,  199. 

30  Post,  i  79. 

31  Hyatt  t>.  Adam.s,  16  Mich.  180, 199. 

32  Mewhirter  )•.  Halten,  42  Iowa,  288,  28") :  20  Am.  Rep.  618  ;  Hyatt 
V.  Adams,  16  Mich.  180,  199  ;  Whitcomb  v.  Barre,  '^  Vt.  148.  152  ;  Lind- 
sey V.  Danville,  46  Vt.  144,  148  ;  Kavanaugh  ?'.  .lanesville.  24  Wl.s.  618, 
621  ;  supi-a,  n  7.  He  is  eutitled  to  them  ni  spite  of  modern  statutes : 
Ante,  J  a5. 

33  Smith  v.  St.  Joseph,  55  Mo.  456,  450  ;  17  Am.  Rep.  660  ;  Lindsey  v. 
Danville,  46  Vt.  144, 150. 

34  Lindsey  v.  Danville,  46  Vt  144, 149. 

35  Smith  v.  St.  Joseph,  55  Mo.  456, 459  ;  17  Am.  Rep.  660 ;  LIndsey-v,- 
DanvUle,  46  Vt.  144,  150. 

36  Filiebrown  v.  Hoar,  124  Mass.  580,  .585  ;  Hyatt  v.  Adams,  16  Mich. 
180, 198. 

37  Hyatt  v.  Adams,  16  Mich.  180,  18-5.  See  Baker  v.  Bolton,  1  Camp. 
493;  Carey  V.  Berkshire,  1  Cush.  475,  478  ;  Neilson  v.  Brown,  13  R.  I. 
651;  43  Am.  Rep.  58. 

38  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ?  472.    See  also  cases  post,  ?  80. 

39  Long  V.  Morrison,  14  Ind.  595,  596  ;  Hyatt  v.  Adams,  16  Mich.  180, 
193, 196. 

40  Ballard  v.  Russell,  33  Me.  196,  117;  Laughlin  v.  Eaton,  &1  Me. 
136, 159. 

41  Dengate  v.  Gardiner,  4  Mees.  &  W.  6,  7 ;  Smalley  v.  Anderson,  2 
Mon.  B.-  56,  57;  Newcomer  v.  Kean,  57  Md.  121,  122,  125  ;  Beach  v. 
Ranney,  2  Hill,  :)09,  316.  •  See  Davies  v.  Solomon,  Law  R.  7  Q.  B.  112, 
114. 

42  Dengate  v.  Gardiner,  4  Mees.  &  W.  6, 7 ;  Beach  r;.  Ranney,  2  Hill, 
309,  316. 

43  Savillev.  Sweeney,  4  Barn.  <ft  Adol.  514,  522  ;  AIlsop,  2  Law  T. 
N.  8.  290, 291 ;  Tbrogmorton  v.  Davis,  2  Blackf.  383,  384, 


Ill  CONJUGAL   RIGHTS  AND  OBLIGATIONS.  §  78 

44  Allsop,  2  Law  T.  N.  S.  290  ;  Shafer  v.  Ahalt,  4S  Md.  171,  174  ;  Wil- 
son V.  Goit,  17  N.  Y.  442,  444  ;  Terwilliger  v.  Wands,  17  N.  Y.  54. 

45  Crump  v.  McKay,  8  Jones,  32,  34. 

46  Pollard  v.  N.  J.  101  U.  S.  223,  244  ;  Heirn  v.  McCaughan,  32  Miss. 
17,  39. 

47  Herd  V.  Peck,  56  Barb.  292,  206. 

48  rnst,  i  78. 
43    Post,  I  79. 

50  Hay  v.  Rogers,  4  Mori.  235,  226.  S^e  Kimbro  A  First,  I'McAr. 
R5  ;  Bell  v.  Allen,  53  Ala,  125  :  Weagle  v.  Hensley.  5  Marsh.  J.  J.  378  ; 
Fightmaster  v.  Beaslev,  1  Marsh.  J.  J.  eofi  ;  Bratton  v.  Mitchell,  7 
Watts,  115;  Armstrong  v.  .Simartou,  2  Murph.  202;  Gibson,  43  Wis. 
34  ;  poM,  I  183. 

51  Post,  I  183. 

?  78.  Suits  for  enticement  or  hartoriag.  —  1.  A  hus- 
band is  entitled  to  liis  wife's  society, '  as  well  as  her 
services,^  and  again.st  any  one  who  by  abducting  her,' 
or  inducing  her  to  leave  him,^  or  keeping  Iter  separate 
from  liim,*  deprives  liiin  of  her  society  and  services,  he 
lias  a  right  of  action.^  One,  whether  a  parent^  or  a 
.stranger,^  is  liable  to  the  husband  for  separating  his 
wife  from  him,  .so  long  as  such  parent  or  .stranger  is 
the  moving  cause  of  tlie  separation  ;8  if  the  wife  has  a 
ground  for  divorce  against  her  husband,  andaotrauger 
being  consulted  by  ho;*^  or  a  parent,"  advises  her  to 
leave  him  and  get  a  divorce,  and  acting  on  such  advice 
she  does  so,  tlie  husband  has  no  right  of  action,  but  it 
is  otherwise  if  a  stranger,  of  his  own  accord,  thus 
brings  about  a  divorce.'''  And  parents  are  justified  in 
opening  their  daughter's  eyes  to  the  bad  character  of 
her  husband  if  they  use  no  misrepresentation  or  phy- 
sical or  moral  force  to  keep  her  from  him,  though  they 
thus  cause  a  final  separation  between  them.''  Harbor- 
ing a  wife  may  be  justifiable  wlien  causing  a  sepai-atiou 
would  not  be;'*  it  is  always  so  if  the  husband  has  for- 
feited his  right  of  coliabitation.'^  Not  only  a  parent  '^  or 
child,"  but  a  stranger'*  may  give  shelter  to  a  wife  who 
has  left  her  husband,  but  the  motives  of  such  harborer 


I  1%  CONJUGAL   RIGHTS   AND   OBLIGATIONS.  112 

are  important,  and  must  not  be  to  separate  husband 
and  wife  ;  '^  those  of  a  parent  are  presumed  good.'^"  And 
when  in  addition  to  giving  shelter  there  is  concealment 
of  tlie  wife,'^i  or  denial  of  access  to  the  husband,-^  or 
inducement  of  tlie  wife  not  to  return  to  her  husband, ■'^ 
the  harborer  is  liable.  Still  the  husband  must,  in  the 
case  6f  mere  detainer,  show  demand  and  refusal.^*  In 
other  respects  the  right  of  action  is  very  similar  tohit^', 
right  of  action  for  criminal  conversation.'^ 

2.  A  wife  is  entitled  to  the  society  of  her  husband,'* 
and  when  she  may  sue  A\'ithout  her  husband  for  injuries 
to  her,'^  she  may  sue  one  who  separates  her  husband 
from  her.^ 

3.  The  damages  awarded  in  this  action  should  covei 
the  value  to  the  plaintiff®  of  the  spouse  wliose  society 
has  been  lost,*"  as  well  as  actual  pecuniary  less,  if  any.*' 

1  ArUe,  ii  5<l,  62. 

2  A7ite,  i  G5. 

3  See  White  v.  Ross,  47  Mich.  172,  176. 

4  Barnes  V.Allen,  TO  Barb.  G6;t,fi&S;  1  Keyes,  390;  1  Abb.  A  pp.  Doc. 
Ill,  115.  116. 

5  "Barbee  r.  Armstead,  10  Ired.  .i:«),  5:«  ;  51Am.  Dec.  401. 

6  Pliiip  V.  Sqiiii(»,  1  Peake,  115 ;  Henthon  t.  C'artwright, 2  Rsp.  4S0  r 
Winsmore  r.  (ireeiibuck,  Willcs,  577,  5S1  ;  Burnett  i-.  Bnrkheud,  '-' 
Arij.  77,  7!);  Wood  r.  Matthews,  47  Iowa,  40!t,  410;  Hadlev  r.  Hev- 
wood,  121  Mass.  2:56,  2:«i:  'riinier  v.  tilstes,  3  Mass.  317,318';  White  V. 
Ross,  47  :Miph.  172.  176  ;  Modisett  v.  McPike,  74  .Mo.  636,  647  ;  Barnes  v. 
.\llpn,  m  Barb.  663,  66S ;  1  Keyes,  3<K) ;  1  Abb.  App.  Dec.  Ill,  115.  116; 
Schoeivnian  r.  Palmer,  4  Barb.  22.'),  226,  227;  Bennett  v.  Smith.  21 
Barb.  Hi.  441 ;  Hiitoheson  v.  Peck,  5  Johns.  196.  205;  Smith  r.  I.vke, 
20  N.  Y.  Supr.  204,205  ;  Barbee  v.  Armstead,  10  Ired.  ,5.30,  ,5'«  ;  51  Am. 
Dec.  404  ;  Friend  v.  Thompson,  Wright,  6.36,  6.^s;  Rabe  v.  Hanna,  5 
Oliio,  530,  .531 ;  Payne  v.  Williams,  4  Ba.xt.  5H3,  .5S.5.  Consult  eases  bo*<, 
{  79.     But  see  Neilson  v.  Brown,  13  R.  I.  6.51  ;  43  Am.  llep.  53. 

7  Hutcheson  v.  Peck,  5  Johns.  196,  202,  201. 

8  Bennett  v.  Smith,  21  Barb.  439,  441. 

9  Hartley  v.  Heywood,  121  JIass.  236,  239  ;  svpra,  n.  6. 

10  Modisett  v.  JlcPike,  74  >Io.  636,  646. 

11  White  V.  Ross,  47  Mich.  172,  176  ;  Modisett  v.  McPike,  74  Mo.  6.36, 
517.., 


12  Modisett  v.  McPike,  74  Mo.  a36,  046,  617. 

13  White  V.  Ross,  47  Mich.  172,  17 
45  ;  Payne  v.  Williams,  4  Baxt.  583 

14  Barnes  v.  Allen,  30  Barb.  66.3,  ( 


13    White  V.  Ross,  47  Mich.  172,  176  ;  Bennett  i'.  Smitl\,  21  Barb.  439, 
445  ;  Payne  v.  Williams,  4  Baxt.  583,  .585. 


113  CONJUGAL   RIGHTS   AND   OBLIGATIONS.  g  79 

lo  Borthon  r.  Cirtwri^ht,  2  Esp.  480;  Barnes  v.  Allen,  30  Barb.  663, 
6RS  ;  1  Abh.  App.  IJcc.  Ill,  116. 

16  Burnett  )■.  Biirkhead,  21  Ark.  77,  73;  Frieiul  r.  Thompson, 
Wright,  636,  63S  ;  Rabe  »'.  llanna,  o  Ohio,  SW,  531. 

17  Turner  v.  Estes,  3Ma.ss.  317,  318. 

18  Philp  V.  Squire,  1  Peake,  115;  HutcheSon  v.  Peck,  5  Johns.  196, 
201. 

19  Hntcheson  i'.  Peck,  5  Johns.  196,  205  ;  Barnes  v.  Allen,  1  Abb. 
App.  Dec.  Ill,  lis ;  Friend  v.  Thompson,  Wright,  6:i6,  638  ;  cases  »ui>ra, 
n.  6. 

20  Burnett  r.  Burkhead,  21  Ark.  77,  79;  Hntcheson  i'.  Peck,  5 
Johns,  lilfi,  210 ;  Rabe  >\  Hanna,  5  Ohio,  »»,  531.  See  White  v.  Ro.ss,  47 
Mich.  172,  176. 

21  Turner  t\  Estes,  3  Ma.ss.  317,  318. 

22  See  Barbee  i'.  Armstcad,  10  Ired.  530.  5^T  ;  ."1  .\m.  Dec.  404. 

23  See  Winsmore  i'.  Greenbank,  Willes,  .580;  Bennett  v.  Smith,  21 
Barb.  4:Kt,  442. 

24  See  Win.smore  r.  Greenbank,  Willes,  577,  581  ;  Barbee  v.  Arm- 
stead,  10  Ired.  5:»,  .53;j;  51  Am.  Dec.  404. 

2,T    P(i«ty  i  79.    See  Perry  ?).  Lovejoy,  49  Mich.  529. 

25  Lynch  x\  Knight,  9  H.  L.  Ca.s.  577,  .58.) ;  anif,  ?  59. 

27  Van  Arn.-im  v.  Ayers,  67  Barb.  .544,  548  ;  post,  { 

28  See  Lynch  v.  Knight,  9  H.  L.  C'as.  .577,  .5.S0 ;  Davies  v.  Solomon 
Law  H.  7  Q.  B.  112,  114  ;  Van  Arnani  v.  Ayers,  67  Barb.  544,  .548  ;  Brei- 
nian  v.  Paasch,  7  Ahh.  N.  C.  249,  252  ;  Clark  v.  Harlan,  1  Cin.  418,  4'22 : 
Westlake,  :w  Ohio  St.  621,  6is  ;  ;n  Am.  Kep.  397 ;  19  Abb.  L.  J.  4!M :  8 
CeiiU  L.  J.  47;j. 

29  Payne  v.  Williams,  4  Baxt.  .583,  5Sfi  ;  jwit,  I  79. 

30  Cowing,  33  Law  J.  Prob.  149,  150  ;  Ferguson  v.  Smetbers,  70  Ind. 
.5111,  .521  ;  ;i6  Am.  Rep.  186 ;  Payue  v.  WUUams,  4  Baxt.  583,  586  ;  wos^ 
«  70. 

31  Ante,  i  78  ;  post,  f  79. 

?  79.  Suits  for  criminal  conversation.  —  A  husband  has 
besides  his  riitht  to  his  wife's  .society  i  and  services,- 
the  exclusive  right  of  sexual  intercourse  with  her,='  a 
right  on  the  preservation  of  which  depends  the  honor 
and  comfort  of  his  home,  and  the  certainty  that  her 
oflFspring  are  his  children,*  and  he  has  a  right  of  action 
against  any  one  who  commits  adultery  with  her.^ 

1.  The  action  is  either  trespass  or  cass;6but  under 
statute  it  may  form  a  part  of  a  divorce  suit  for  adultery, 
the  complaining  husband  making  his  wife's  paramour 
correspondent  with  her  and  asking  for  damages  from 
him.'    It  is  in  the  nature  of  a  personal  suit,^  and  diH.=» 


g  79  CONJUGAL   KIGHTS   AND   OBLIGATIONS.  114 

with  the  hufiband,''  but  it  is  not  affected  b\'  divorce,'" 
or  by  the  death  of  tlie  wife."  The  gist  of  the  action  is 
tlie  adultery  or  criminal  conversation, '^  and  the  right 
depends  on  tlie  existence  of  an  actual  marriage  between 
the  plaintifT  and  tlie  woman  at  tlie  time  of  the  adul- 
tery.'* 

2.  The  declaration  should  allege  tlie  marriage,'^  and 
the  adultery  ;  '*  but  the  latter  need  not  be  so  specitica.lly 
alleged '•■as  in  divorce  cases;''  counts  for  loss  of  ser- 
vices,'8  and  for  loss  of  society'"  may  be  joined,  but 
proof  of  neither  is  necessary  to  support  the  suit.-*"  The 
sole  defense  seems  to  be  that  the  plaintiff  consented  to 
his  wife's  adultery  with  the  defendant,'^'  or  consented 
to  her  living  jis  a  prostitute ''■' — it  is  no  defense  that  the 
plaintiff  was  living  apart  from  his  wife  before  the 
adultery  complained  of.^  or  continued  living  with  lier 
thereafter,-*  and  aftei  he  knew  of  it;*  or  that  Jiis  wife 
was  unchaste'^  before^'  or  after''*  her  marriage  with 
him  ;  or  that  he  was  unchaste;''®  or  that  he  treated  her 
badly,*"  or  was  simply  careless  of  her  mode  of  life ;  ="  or 
that  she  readily  («nsented  to  commit  the  adulterj-,"' 
though  all  those  facts  maj'  be  proved  without  allega- 
tion in  mitigation  of  damages.**  Nor  is  it  a  defense 
that  the  adultery  was  a  crime  —  rape.*^ 

3.  Strict  proof  of  marriage  is  required ;  »^  adultery  is 
proved  as  in  divorce  cases.*"  Confessions  of  the  wife 
are  not  evidence  against,*'  or  her  declarations  evidence 
for,*8  the  defendant,  unless  the}'  are  a  part  of  the  i-es 
(jesta;;^  but  the  defendant's  cxinfessions  are  evidence.^*' 
The  wife  cannot  generally  testify  at  all.*' 

4.  The  damages  allowed  in  suits  for  criminal  conver- 
sation are  jienal  rather  than  compensatory,''-  for  the 
plaintiff  is  entitled  to  substantial  damages  though  he 
prove  no  resulting  expense  or  loss  of  society  or  ser- 
vices.**   They  are  often  exemplary,**  and  courts  will 


115  CONJUGAI.   RIGHTS   AND   OBLIGATIONS.  §  79 

rarely  set  aside  a  verdict  for  excess.^^  The  jurj^  con- 
siders the  value  of  tlie  wife/*  her  previous  want  of 
chastity/^  her  easy  fail/**  and  liow  far  it  was  caused  by 
the  plaintiff's  disregard  of  his  marriage  obligations ;  ^* 
the  extent  of  tlie  plaintiff's  loss,*"  how  much  he  saw  of 
her,*'  and  cared  for  her :  »•*  the  shock  to  his  feelings,** 
the  dishonor  of  his  bed,*'  the  doubts  cast  on  the  pedi- 
gree of  his  children,**  the  loss  of  his  A\ife's  comfort 
and  assistance, *'•  her  resulting  unfitness  for  domestic 
duties;*'  the  defendant's  conduct,  whether  sudden  or 
deliberate;**  the  defendant's  wealth,  if  he  used  it  to 
seduce  tlie  wifa,*"  to  enhance  damages,*"  but  not  his 
poverty  to  diminish  them."*  The  jurj'  cannot  consider 
the  injury  to  the  honor,  reputation,  and  happiness  of 
the  plaintiff's /a^rtti^."^ 

1  Aiitf,  ii  5.),  G:,  78. 

2  Ante,  H  Go,  77. 

3  Ante,  J  59. 

4  YuiKlt  V.  Hartranft,  41  111.  9,  17. 

6  Cowing,  33  Law  J.  Prob.  149, 150 ;  Colcraft  v.  Harborough,  4  Car. 
A  P.  49.1,501  ;  Winter  v.  Henn,  4  Car.  &  P.  4!M,  498;  Wilton  v.  Web- 
ster, 7  Car.  <fe  P.  198  ;  Duberly  v.  UtinninK,  4  Term,  657  ;  Chamberlain 
V.  Hazlewooil,  6  Mees.  &  W.  515,  517;  Davenport  v.  Russell,  5  Day, 
145,  149 ;  Norton  v.  Warner,  9  Conn.  172,  174  ;  Cook  v.  Wood,  W  Ga.  891, 
893;  Peters  r.  Lake,  66  111.  2(i6;  16  Am.  Kep.  5!t:t;  Rea  v.  Tucker,  51 
III.  110,  111  ;  Ynncit  v.  Hartranft,  41  III.  9.  12  ;  Van  Varhter  v.  McKil- 
lip,  7  HIaekf.  5.S9  ;  McVey  v.  Blair,  7  Did.  .5!M),  .592  ;  Dallas  %k  Sellers,  17 
Ind.  479,  4S0  ;  Harrison  r.  Price, 22  Did.  165,  IfiG  ;  Underwood  r.  Linton, 
bi  Did.  468,  4r.;);  Coleman  v.  White,  59  Ind.  548,  551;  Ferguson  v. 
Smethers,  70  Did.  519,  .V21 ;  30  Am.  Rep.  ISfi  ;  Verholf  v.  Van  Houwen- 
lengen,21  Iowa,  42!i.  432  ;  .Stunim  v.  Hummel,  39  Iowa,  478,  480  ;  Coii- 
wavi'.  Nicoll.IH  Iowa,  .533,  5;«!;  Dunee  c.  MeBi  i'le,  43  Iowa,  624,  629 ; 
Wood  V.  Matthews,  47  Iowa,  409,411  ;  KiUby  r.  Kucker,  1  Marsh.  A.  K. 
.391 ;  Palmer  v.  Crook,  7  Gray,  4IS  ;  Diekcriiian  v.  Graves,  6  Cush.  308  ; 
63  Am.  Dec.  41  ;  Pierce,  3  Pick.  2'i9  ;  l.>  .\  m.  Dec.  210 ;  Hadley  v.  Hey- 
wood,  121  Mass.  236,  239  ;  Hutchins  )•.  Kiiiimell,  31  Mich.  126;  18  Am. 
Rep.  164  ;  Johnston  r.  Disbrow,  47  Mich.  .59  ;  Egbert  i\  Greenwalt,  44 
Mich.  245,  247  ;  38  Am.  Rep.  260;  .Sanborn  v.  Neilson,  4  N.  H.  501,  510  ; 
Foulks  V.  Archer,  :n  N.  J.  L.  .58,60  ;  Harter  v.  (rill,  .33  Barb.  2.83.  285; 
Ratcliflf  1'.  Wales,  I  Hill,  63 ;  Bunnell  v.  Grenthead,  49  Barb.  106,  107 ; 
Traill  V.  Boyer,  24  Barb.  614  ;  Preston  ?•.  Bowers,  13  Ohio  St.  1,  12  ; 
Sherwood  r.  Titman,  .5-5  Pa.  St.  77,  79  ;  Fry  v.  Derstler,  2  Yeates,  278, 
279  ;  Forney  v.  Hallacher,  H  Serg.  &  R.  1.59,  160  ;  I  Am.  Dec.  590 ;  Torre 
V.  Summers,  2  Xott  <fc  McC.  267,  271  ;  Blunt  v.  Little,  3  Mason,  102, 106  ; 
Shattuck  V.  Hammond,  46  Vt.  466,  469  ;  14  Am.  Rep.  631. 

6  Chamberlain  v.  Ilazlewood,  5  Mees.  &  W.  515,  517;  Yundt  ''. 
Hartranft,  41  111.9,17;  Van  Vachter  v.  McKillip,  7  Blaekf.  678,  580 ; 
15  Am.  Law  Reg.  N.  S.  449. 


§79 


CONJUGAL.   EIGHTS   AND   OBLIGATIONS.  116 


7  Spe  Conrarti,  L.  R.  1  Pro.  &  T).  fi.3  ;  35  Law  J.  M.  C.  49  ;  West,  Law 
R.  2  Pro.  &  D.  liW  ;  -40  L.  J.  M.  V.  11 ;  Underhill  Torts,  r\ile  32. 

8  Garrison  v.  Burden,  -10  Ala.  5i:j. 

9  Vumlt  )'.  Hartranft, -II  111.  912. 

10  Michel  )•.  Dunkle,84  Iiifl.  ^4  :  43'Am.  RsT).  lOto ;  Wood  %<.  Mat- 
thews, 47  Iowa,  40J,  4il ;  Dickermaii  v.  Graves,  G  C'ush.  30S ;  Ratclilf  v. 
Waies,  1  Hill,  G;i. 

11  Yundt  V.  Hartranft,  41  III.  9, 12. 

12  Wood  V.  Mat.Uews,  47  Iowa,  409,  410.  See  Wilton  v.  Webster,  7 
Car.  &  P.  198. 

13  Morris  v.  Miller,  4  Burr,  20.57,  2050;  Birt  v.  Barlow,  Dong.  171, 
174  :  Kihhv  v.  Riicker,  1  Marsh.  A.  K.  -Wl  ;  Hntchins  v.  Ivinimell,  31 
Mich.  r.'U;  18  Am.  Rep.  Ib4 ;  Dan  v.  Kingdom,  1  Thomp.  &  C.  492; 
i'orney  v.  Hallacher,  8  Serg.  &  R.  1.59,  160. 

14  Hauck  V.  Grantham,  22  Ind.  53. 

15  See  Stumm  v.  Hummel,  .39  Iowa,  478,  480. 

16  See  15  .\m.  Law  Reg.  N.  S.  449. 

17  Stewart  M.  &  D.  i  244. 

18  See  Yundt  v.  Hartrauft,  41  111.  9,  18  ;  ante,  {  77. 

19  Ante,  5  78. 

20  Wilton  r.  Webster,  7  Car.  &  P.  198  ;  Ynndt  v.  Tlartranft,  41  111. 
9, 17  ;  Bigaouette  v.  Paulet,  VH  Ma.ss.  123  ;  45  Am.  Rep.  307. 

21  Duberly  v.  Gunning,  4  Term,  651,6.52 ;  Norton  r.  Warner,  9  Conn. 
172,  174  ;  .'Muinin  v.  Hummel,  3J  Iowa,  478,  482  ;  .Sanhorn  r.  Neilson,  4 
N.  H.  501,  511  ;  Bunnell  v.  Greathead,  49  Barb.  106,  107;  Sherwood  v. 
Titman,  65  I'a.  St.  77,  80,  81. 

22  Cook  )■.  Wood,  .30  Ga.  891,  893  ;  Sanborn  v.  Neilson,  4  N.  H.  501, 
610;  Bunnell  v.  Greathead,  49  Barb.  106,  107. 

23  Yundt  v.  Hartranft,  41  111.  10,  17  ;  Michel  r.  Dunkle.  .^  Ind.  .544  : 
43  Am.  Rep.  100.  But  see  Sherman  v.  Titman,  55  Pa.  .St.  77,  79 ;  Fry  v. 
i)erstler,  2  Yeates,  278,  279. 

24  Wilton  V.  Webster,  7  Car.  &  P.  198  ;  Stumm  v.  Hummel,  AT 
Iowa,  478,  483  ;  infra,  n.  2.5. 

25  Vorholf  V.  Van  Houwenlengen,  21  Iowa, 429,  4:C  See  Clauser  r. 
Clapper, -59  Ind.  .548,  .552  ;  Stumm  v.  Hummel,  39  Iowa,  478,483;  San- 
born V.  Neilson,  4  N.  H.  501,  .510. 

26  Elsam  r.  F.iucett,  2  Esp.  .562,563;  Winter  v.  Henn,  4  Car.  ife  P. 
414,  4!).s;  Norton  r.  Warner,  9  Conn.  171,  174  ;  Rea  v.  Tucker.  51  III.  110, 
111  ;  Clauser  .".  Clapper,  .59  Ind.  .548,  551 ;  Ferguson  v.  Snictlicrs,70  Ind. 
519,  521 ;  36  Am.  Rep.  186;  Conwav  v.  Nicoll,  .54  Iowa,  .513,  5:«i ;  Harri- 
son )'.  l"rice,  22  Ind.  165,  168;  .Sanborn  v.  NcilsDu,  4  N.  H.  .501,  510; 
Foulks  %'.  A  rcher,  31  X.  J.  L.  .58.  (K) ;  (Sardiier  v.  Maderia,  2  Yeates,  466 ; 
Torre  i'.  Summers,  2  Nott  &  McC.  267,  271 ;  10  .\m.  Dec.  597, 

27  Conway  v.  Nicoll,  34  Io\va,  5;{:J,  .5.!6  ;  supra,  n.  26. 

28  Winter  r.  Henn,  4  Car.  &  P.  494,  498  ;  supra,  n.  26. 

29  Norton  v.  Warner,  9  Conn.  172.  174  ;  Rea  r.  Tucker.  51  111.  110, 
111  ;  Harrison  v.  Price,  22  Ind.  165,  166;  Sanborn  v.  Neilson,  4  N.  H. 
501,  .510 ;  Shattock  v.  Hammond,  4t>  Vt.  466, 469  ;  14  .\  m.  Rep.  631. 

30  Norton  r.  Warner,  9  Conn.  172,  174  ;  Coleman  v.  White,  43  Ind, 
429,  430  ;  Palmer  )\  Crook,  7  (Jray,  418. 

.31  Puberly  v.  Gunning, 4  Term,  657  ;  .Tones  v.  Sparrow,  5  Term,  2.57  ; 
Winter  v.  Jl'enn,  4  Car.  &  P.  494,  499 ;  Colcraft  r.  Harborongh,  4  Car. 


117  CONJUGAL   RIOIITS   AND   OCLIGATIOXS.  J  73 

<t  P.  409,  5D1  :  niunt  ?'.  Littlp, :{  Mason.  102.  10.!;  Van  Vachter  v.  Mc- 
Killip,  7  Bhickf.  .-►■*.),  r,M  ;  Pierc.',  :i  Pick. 2<.r.) ;  l.">  Am.  Dec. 'im  ;  Sanboin 
V.  Neiison,  4  N.  H.  .iOl,  .510. 

XL  PJisani  v.  Fancett,  2  Esp.  362  ;  Ferguson  v.  SniPthers.  70  [ii'I.  .">] '. 
.'^21  :  .ifi  Am.  Rpp.  186;  Big.iouette  v.  Panlet,  IM  Mass.  12.i;  -l.j  Am. 
Kep.  :«J7.  • 

Xi  See  cases  cited  suprn,  notes  2'!— "S ;  Harrison  v.  Price,  22  Ind.  Ifi.!, 
Ifii; :  Verholf  v.  Van  Hoinvenlengen,  21  Iowa,  4.'!),  4.i:i ;  infra,  notes 
47-fil. 

.a    Egbert  v.  Green  wait,  44  Mich.  24.5,  247  ;  38  Am.  Rep.  2G0. 

35    Stewart  M.  &  D. J  1:5.5 ;  .?i(;;m,  n.  13. 

.%    Stewart  M.  <fe  D^  i'e  24.5-247,  Mi-:m. 

.37  McVey  V.  Blair,  7  Ind.  590,  o'Jl ;  Underwood  r.  Linton,  54  Ind. 
4G.S,  40!). 

:JS    Harris  1'.  Rnpel,  14  Ind.  209. 

3'>  See  Bennett  r.  Smith,  21  Barb.  4.39,446  ;  Barnes  v.  Allen,  1  Abb. 
App.  Dec.  111.  IKi;  Preston  r.  Bowers,  ISOIiioSt.  1,  12. 

40  Si.nborn  v.  Neilsou.  4  X.  II.  .501,  50S. 

41  Ante,  ?  50. 

42  Ynndt  w  Hartranft,  41  III.  9,  is  tho  leading  case. 

43  Vundt  r.  Ilartrarft,  41  111.  !l.  12,  13,  17;  Stiimm  v.  Ilummel,  .39 
Iowa,  478,  4S0 ;  Wilton  r.  Webster,  7  Car.  &  P.  198. 

44  Peters  v.  Laive.  fif.  111.  20(!  ;  IS  Am.  Rep.  .59.3. 

45  Duberlv  >'.  GuiiTiiiig,  4  Term,  0.51,  fi.5o,  fvifi ;  .lohnston  )'.  Disbrow, 
47  Mich.  59  ;  Torre  r.  Simimers,  2  Nott  &  McC.  207,  271 ;  10  Am.  Dec.  597. 

46  2  Sedg.  Dam.  517,  note  ;  Cowing,  .^3  Law  J.  Prob.  149,  l.V) ;  Winter 
V.  Henn,4  Car.  &  i'.  4!I4,  498;  Ferguson  i'.  Smethers,  70  Ind.  519,  620, 
521  ;  :«!  .\m.  Rep.  180. 

47  Conway  v.  Nicoll,  .34  Iowa,  .533,  536  ;  xitprn,  notes  26,  27,  28. 

48  Ferguson  v.  .Smethers,  7u  Ind.  519,  .521 ;  3G  Am.  Rep.  156. 

49  Coleman  v.  White.  43  Ind.  429,  430  ;  suprn,  notes  .30,  31. 

50  Bromley  v.  Wallace,  4  Esp.  237,2.38.  See  Pavne  v.  Williams,  4 
Ba.xt.  583,  586. 

51  Colcraft  t'.  Harborongh,  4  Car.  A  P.  499,  .501.  But  .see  Dallas  v 
Sellers,  17  Ind.  479. 

.52    Bromley  v.  Wallace,  4  Esp.  237,  2:i3  ;  Harter  v.  Crill, :«  Barb.  283, 
28.5. 
53    Johnston  v.  Disbrow,  47  Mich.  .59. 

•54  Yundt  V.  Hartranft,  41  III.  10,  12,  17  ;  Wilton  v.  Webster,  7  Car. 
&  P.  198. 

.5.5  Yundt  V.  Hartranft,  41  III.  10, 12, 17. 

56  Y'undt  v.  Hartranft,  41  III.  10,  18. 

57  Davenport  v.  Hu.ssell,  5  Day,  145,  149. 

.58  Stumm  v.  Hummel,  39  Iowa,  478,  4S0. 

.59  Cowing,  33  Law  J.  Prob.  149,  1.50  ;  Wilson  v.  Leonard,  5  Ir.  Ju'. 
(O.  S.)  1  Exch.  96. 

60  Peters  i'.  Lake,  66  III.  206  ;  Rea  v.  Tucker,  51  III.  110,  HI. 

61  James  )'.  Biddington,  6  Car.  &  P.  .589. 

62  Ferguson  v.  Smethers,  70  Ind.  510,  521 ;  .36  Am.  Rep.  186. 


II  80-81       CONJUGAL  BIGHTS  AND  OBLIGATIONS.  118 

g  80.  Suits  under  civil  damage  acts.  —  In  many  States 
there  are  statutes  which  give  a  right  of  action  to  any 
one  who  is  injured  in  person,  property,  or  means  of 
.support  1  by  the  drunkenness  of  another,  against  the 
liquor  seller  who  supplies  such  other  with  drink  ;  and 
under  such  statutes  a  husband  has  a  riglit  of  action  for 
loss  of  the  wife's  services,^  and  a  wife  for  loss  of  the 
husband's  support,^  caused  by  intoxication,  and  may 
recover  actual*  and  in  certain  cases  exemplary  dam- 
ages.* Such  suits  are  unknown  independently  of 
statute.^ 

1  Kellerman  v.  Arnold,  71  111.  632  ;  Jackson  v.  Noble,  54  Iowa,  641 ; 
Moran  v.  (Joodwiii,  \W  Muss.  loS  ;  39  Am.  Rep.  443  ;  Mead  r.  Striitlon, 
87  N.  Y.  443  ;  41  Am.  Rep.  386  ;  Volaiis  v.  Owen,  74  N.  Y.  5'.>6  ;  30  Am. 
Rep.  337. 

2  Welch  V.  Jugenheimer,  56  Iowa,  11 ;  Moran  v.  Goodwin,  130 
Mass.  15S  ;  39  Am.  Rep.  443. 

3  Shroder  v.  Crawford,  fM  111.  .^57 ;  Hall  v.  Barnes,  82  111.  22.8 ;  Kel- 
lerman V.  Arnold,  71  111.  6;U;  Neuerberg  r.  Gaultcr,4  III.  .\pp.  :{48  ; 
Schafer  v.  Smith, 63  Ind.  226;  Mitchell  v.  Rails,  57  lud.  2.V,t;  Richmond 
ti.  Shickler,  57  Iowa,  486  ;  Jackson  i\  Noble,  .54  Iowa,  641  ;  Macleod  v. 
Geyer,  5:i  Iowa,  615;  Loan  v.  Hiney,  53  Iowa,  8'.» ;  Wcilz  i:  Kwen,  ,50 
Iowa,  .34  ;  Werner  v.  Edmistoii,  24  Kan.  147 ;  Gilmore  v.  Matthews,  67 
Me.  517  ;  Barrett  v.  Dolan,  i:»  Mass.  :«i6;  39  Am.  Rep.  4.56  ;  Brooks  v. 
Cook,  44  Mich.  617;  38  Am.  Rep.  282 ;  Steele  v.  Thompson,  39  Mich. 
733;  37  Mich.  25;  Roose  v.  Perkins,  9  Neb.  3(W  ;  31  Am.  Rep.  409; 
Mead  v.  Stratton,  87  N.  Y.  493;  41  Am.  Rep.  :«6  ;  Hill  i-.  Berrv,  75 
N.  Y.  225  ;  Volans  r.  Owen,  74  N.  Y.  .526  ;  30  Am.  Rep.  337 ;  Davis  v. 
Standish,  26  Hun,  608  ;  Beam  v.  Green,  33  Ohio  St.  444. 

4  Schafor  v.  Smith,  63  Ind.  226  ;  Roose  v.  Perkins,  9  Neb.  304. 

5  Kellerman  1'.  Arnold,  71  111.  6.32;  Weitz  v.  Ewen,  50  Iowa,  34; 
Richmond  r.  Shickler,  .57  Iowa  486;  Steele  !».  Thompson,  42  Mich. 
594  ;  Davis  v.  Standish,  26  Hun,  608. 

6  Woods  1'.  Coenan,  44  Iowa,  19. 

§  81.  Suits  for  necessaries.  —  Suits  against  a  husband 
by  a  party  wlio,  at  tlie  request  of  the  wife  and  on  the 
credit  of  the  husband,  lias  furnished  supplies  or  per- 
formed services,  are  commonly  called  "  suits  for  neces- 
saries." They  are  of  two  kinds:  (I)  Those  in  which 
the  right  of  action  is  based  on  the  wife's  agency  in  law 
to  pledge  her  husband's  credit  for  the  support  which  he 
owes  1  but  denies — considered  in  Stewart  on  Marriage 


119  CONJUGAL  RIGHTS  AND  OBLIGATIOXS.  §  81 

and  Divorce  ;'  (2)  those  in  which  the  riglit  of  action  is 
based  on  the  wife's  agency  in  fact  to  make  pjirciiases  or 
engage  services  for  her  Inisband's  liouse  and  family  — 
considered  liereafter  under  agency  of  wife  for  husband.^ 

1  Ante,  i  M. 

2  Stewart  M.  <fe  D.  5  180. 

3  I'oxt/ii^'^ 


§  82  AGENCY  BETWEEN.  120 

CHAPTER  V. 

CONJUGAIi  AGENCY. 

Art.  I.    Agency  Between  Husband  and  Wife  in 
GKNErfAL,  gjj  82,  83. 
II.    AoEN("Y  OF  Husband  for  Wife,  ??  S4-S8. 
III.    Agency  of  Wife  for  Husband,  Jg  89-98. 

Article  I.  —  Agency  Between  Husband  and  Wife 
IN  General. 

{  82.    In  law  and  in  fact. 

5  s:!.    Division  of  the  subject. 

2  82.  Agency  botweon  husband  and  wife  in  law  and  in 
fact.  —  An  aj;ent  is  a  person  whose  act  on  bclialf  of 
another,  called  the  principal,  is  duly  authorized.'  Such 
authority  may  be  derived  from  the  law,  and  an  agcncij 
in  law  is  thus  created;  or  from  tlie  principal,  in  wliich 
case  an  agency  in  fact  is  constituted.''  All  a(!ts  which 
one  spouse  may  do  for  tlie  other  because  tliey  are  lius- 
band  and  wife  are  done  by  virtue  of  an  agency  in  law; 
for  all  otlujr  acts  which  one  spouse  may  do  for  the 
other  tliere  must  exist  such  others  prior  mandate,  con- 
temporaneous assent,  or  subsequent  ratification — an 
F.gency  in  fact.* 

1.  In  kiiv.  A  logical  application  of  the  common-law 
fiction  tliat  husband  and  wife  are  one*  would  make  all 
tlic  acts  of  one  in  law  the  acts  of  the  other,  but  as  the 
wife's  normal  status  is  one  of  lost  identity'*  and  legal 
disability,^  iier  acts  are  not  legally  acts  at  all,  and  bind 
no  one ;  onh'  when  the  husband's  disregard  of  liis  con- 
jugal obligations  renders  her  condition  abnormal  ha.s 
she  any  authority  in  law  to  act  for  him  —  as  when  he 
refuses  to  support  her  and  she  pledges  his  credit,^  or 


121  AGENCY   BETWEEX.  g  82 

deserts  her  and  she  sells  his  chattels  for  her  suste- 
nance.8  On  the  other  hand,  the  hiisl>and  does  at  com- 
mon law  cover  and  stand  in  the  place  of  his  wife  ;^  he 
may,  for  example,  release  an  antenuptial  debt  due  to 
her,'"  or  their  joint  right  of  action  for  a  tort  to  her ; " 
notice  to  him  may  be  notice  to  her  ;'2  and  even  such  of 
her  property  as  does  not  pass  to  him  absolutely  is, 
while  he  is  her  husband,  within  his  possession  and 
control."  Besides  this  common-law  agency  of  the  luis- 
band,  statutes  in  some  States  give  him  some  authorit\' 
to  deal  with  his  wife's  separate  propertj'^,"  as  in  Missis- 
sippi, wliere  he  may  buy  supplies  for  his  wife's  planta- 
tion for  which  she  must  pay.'^ 

2.  In  fact.  There  is  nothing  in  the  marriage  relation 
to  prevent  one  spouse  from  being  agent  for  tlie  other,'* 
though  the  unitj^  of  husband  and  wife  may  render 
void  a  contract  between  them  for  compensation  ; "  and 
therefore  whatever  a  husband  can  do  through  any 
agent  he  can  do  through  his  wife,'^  and  a  wife  who 
may  act  by  agent  at  all  may  act  by  her  husband  as 
her  agent."  In  some  States  statutes  prohibit,  to  some 
extent,  agency  between  husband  and  wife.'* 

1  Ewell's  Kvans  Agency,  p.  1. 

2  See  works  on  Agency,  and  cnsos  cited  infra. 

3  McLaren  )•.  Hall.  2fi  Iowa,  2'i7,  :ior>:  Antwooi  v.  Meredith,  37 
Miss.  6:5.5,  (HI  ;  Debenham  v.  Mellon,  Law  K.  5  Q.  B.  3U4,  402. 

4  Auie,  ?  ?«. 

5  O'Ferrall  r.  Simplot,  4  Fowa,  SSI,  :tSO  ;  nnte,  ?  •'iS  ;  post,  I  330. 

6  Post.  Stati-s  ok-  M.aurjkd  Womkx,  5§  331-3.39. 

7  Stewart  M.  cfe  D.  ?  180;  ante,  5?  M,  81. 

8  A  hern  v.  Easterby,  42  Conn.  .546,  .S50  ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  U 174, 177 ; 
post,  i  'M. 

9  Winehrinner  v.  Welsiger,  3  Mon.  32,  34  ;  Burleigh  v.  Coffin,  22 
N.  H.  U.H,  124;  niUe.'i^S. 

10  Mobley  v.  Leophart,  47  Ala.  257,  261  ;  post,  {  176. 

11  Ballard  v.  Russell,  ^%  Me.  196,  197  ;  54  Am.  Dec.  620  ;  ante.  ?  77. 

12  Chew  r.  Henrietta,  I  McCrarv,  222,  226 ;  White  v.  King,  S3 
Ala.  162,  167;  Railroad  v.  BrooUs,  Si  111.  293;  Moore  v.  Wade,  8  Kan. 
380  ;  Jarden  r.  Pnmphrey,  :56  Md.  m\,  :!64  ;  Treadwell  v.  Hernden.  47 
Miss.  46;  Hess  v.  Cole,  23  X.  J.  L.  116;  Leavitt  v.  Griger,   1  Paige, 

H.  &  \V. -11. 


^g  83-84  AGENCY   OF   HUSBAXD   FOR   WIFE.  122 

42\,  422 ;  McCullough  v.  Wilson,  21  Pa.  St.  436,  441  ;  Pringle  v.  Dunn,  37 
Wis.  449  ;  19  Am.  Rep.  772. 

13  Post,  U  141-183. 

14  See  Baker  v.  Flournov,  58  Ala.  650;  Marke  v.  Cowles,  SS  Ala. 
4'ii) ;  Samplev  v.  Watson,  43  Ala.  377  ;  O'Brien  v.  Foreman,  46  Cal.  SO, 
SI  ;  Lawrence  v.  .Sinnamon,  24  Iowa,  80  ;  Holman  v.  Gillette,  24  Mich. 
414;  Clopton  V.  Mntheiiev,  4S  Miss.  498;  Cook  v.  Llgon,  M  Miss.  368, 
373  ;  Antwood  v.  Meredith,  37  Miss.  635,  641. 

15  Cook  V.  Ligon,  54  Miss.,  368,  373,  375. 

16  Glover  v.  Alcott,  11  Mich.  481,  492,  493. 

17  Abbey  r.  Deyo,  44  Barb.  374,  3.S0  ;  ante,  ii  41-^3  ;  post,  ?  87. 

18  McGregor  v.  Sibley.  69  Pju  St.  388  ;  post,  U  89-98. 

19  Wells  I'.  Smith,  54  Ga.  262,  263 ;  post,  U  84-88. 

20  Sanford  !'.  Johnson,  24  Minn.  172,  173. 

§  83.  Agency  between  husband  and  wife — Subject  di- 
vided.—  A  husband's  agency  for  his  wife,  and  a  wife's 
agency  for  her  husband,  in  law  and  in  fact,  must  be 
considered.  But  this  chapter  deals  mainly  with  agency 
in  fact  of  husband'  and  of  wife  ;^  the  wife's  agency  in 
law  arises  onlj^  Avhere  the  husband  has  disregarded  or 
neglected  some  marriage  obligation,  and  is  treated  in 
Stewart  on  Marriage  and  Divorce,"  and  the  husband's 
agency  in  law  is  discussed  under  his  marriage  '•ights 
over  her  person  *  and  property.* 

1  Post.  ?2  84-.S8. 

2  Post,  5?  S:Mt8. 

8    Stewart  M.  &  D.  ?5  174, 177,  180,  389. 

4  ^?i<e,  §?  57-71. 

5  Post,  ii  141-183. 

AbTICI-E  II.  —  AOEXCY  OF  HtTSBAXD  FOR  WiFE. 

5  84.  Appointment  of  husband. 

{  85.  Scope  of  authority  of  husband. 

{  86.  Proof  of  husband's  agency  in  fact. 

{  87.  Compensation  of  husband. 

J  88.  EfTect  of  fraud. 

{  89.  Special  instances  and  illustrations. 

§  84.  Appointment  of  husband  as  agent  for  wife. — A 
husband  maj'  act  in  place  of  his  wife  either  by  her 
authorization  or  bv  authoritv  of  law.' 


123  AGE>-CY   OF   HUSBAND   FOR   WIFE.  g  84 

1.  As  her  ngcnt  in  law  ho  acts  s'.mply  by  virtue  of  his 
rights  over  her  person'  and  i)roperiy,^  and  his  author- 
ity Ls  co-deleruiinate  with  these  rights.*  Thus,  he 
may  sue  for  her  earnings,^  because  he  is  entitled  to 
them  hy  law;^  and  for  the  same  reason  at  common 
law  liis  receipt  for  a  legacy  to  her  was  valid.' 

2.  As  her  agent  in  fact  he  must  have  her  prior  author- 
ity, contemporaneous  assent  or  subsequent  ratification,^ 
his  agency  may  be  revoked^  and  is  revoked  by  her 
death.'"  And  except  in  the  exercise  of  certain  powers,'^ 
whatever  a  married  woman  can  do  herself  she  can  do 
through  an  agent, ''^  and  whatever  she  can  do  through 
an  agent  she  can  do  through  her  husband ; "  but  she 
cannot  accomplish  by  agent  what  she  could  not  do  in 
person.'*  Iler  authority  maj'^  be  given  in  the  usual 
modes,  by  power  of  attorney ,'»  by  parol,'*'  or  hj  con- 
duct ; "  whether  it  was  given  is  a  mere  question  of 
fact.'8  If  she  allows  her  liusband  to  use  her  property 
as  his  own,  she  is  bound  by  his  dealing  with  it,'^  but 
not  if  lie  holds  it  wrongfully.*  If  without  objecting 
she  sees  her  rents  paid  to  him,'^'  or  sees  him  sell  her 
chattels,''^  she  is  bound  bj^  estoppel ;  ^*  but  slie  cannot 
be  bound  hy  estoppel  where  she  could  not  have  been 
bound  directly.^*  If  she  accepts  improvements  on  her 
property  ordered  by  her  husband,'^  or  a  deed  made  to 
her  at  his  request,^*  she  is  bound ;  so  if  siie  assents  to 
his  sale ^' or  mortgage*  of  her  personal  property,  but 
she  cannot  ratify  what  she  could  not  have  autliorized.® 
and  her  mere  silence  is  not  ratification^" — this  is  a 
question  of  fact.^'  Thus,  if  a  Avife  authorizes  her  hus- 
band to  sell  her  land  and  there  is  no  fraud  on  him,^^ 
or  collus:<,'n  between  him  and  the  grantee,^  and  she 
duly  executes  the  deed,  slie  cannot  attack  it  on  the 
ground  of  her  husband's  fraud  on  her  ;3'  nor,  having 
authorized  her  husband  to  sell,  can  she  attack  the  sale 


g  84  AftENCY  OF  HX7SBAND  FOR  WIFE.  124 

on  the  ground  that  he  has  violated  her  private  instruc- 
tlons.3^  She  may  employ  hiia  as  her  clerk ^^  the  master 
of  her  vessel,^^  her  ostler,'''*  the  collector  of  her  roiits,^^ 
the  cultivator  of  her  farm,*"  the  general  manager  of  her 
separate  property"  or  separate  business;**  she  may 
make  him  her  special  agent  to  sell,"  to  buy,"  to  ex- 
change,** to  build  ;*fi  and  in  such  cases  slie  is  entitled  to 
tlie  benefits,*'  and  bound  for  the  liabilities  *8  resulting 
from  his  acts,  whether  Avith  respect  to  himself,*'  or  to 
third  parties.""  So  she  may  be  liable  for  his  tort  as  her 
agent.si  And  his  admissions  may  be  evidence  against 
her.°2 

1  Ante,  ?  82. 

2  Ante,  H  57-Sl. 

3  Seepo«^^?  H1-1S3. 

4  Post,  5  85.  He  may  accept  a  deed  for  her;  McOehee  i<.  White, 
31  Miss.  -11,  4fi  ;  or  elect  for  her,  see  f 'liiKlbourne  v.  Itockoliflf,  .SO  Me. 
354,  :?61 ;  Shallenher^er  ?•.  Asliwortli,  2.5  Pa.  St.  152,  I*! ;  Owen  v.  Han- 
cock, 1  Head,  5fi:?;  Danbrulge  r.  Mliige,  4  Rand.  3U7,  403. 

5  Cranor  v.  Winters,  75  Ind.  301,  30:! ;  ante,  ?  6.5. 

6  Fully,  ante,  i  fi.5. 

7  Mobley  v.  Leophart,  47  Ala.  2.57,  2fil ;  post,  ?  176. 

8  Lichtenberffor  v.  Grahnm,  .50  Ind.  2ss,  2:iO  ;  Mcl.aren  v.  Hall,  26 
Iowa,  297,  305  ;  Aiuwood  v.  Meredith,  37  Miss.  635  ;  641 ;  post,  i  85. 

9  Lyon  V.  Green,  42  "Wis.  548,  554. 

10  Cunningham,  Myr.  Prob.  76. 

11  Rogers  v.  Brooks,  30  Ark.  612,  628  ;  Whitescamer  v.  Bonner,  9 
Iowa,  484  ;  post,  ?  390. 

12  Vail  ?'.  Meyer,  71  Ind.  1.50,  165;  Allen  r.  Johnson,  48  Miss.  418; 
Abbey  v.  Deyo,  44  Barb.  374,  379,  :«1  ;  post,  I  364. 

13  Voorhes  v.  Bonesteel,  16  Wall.  16,  31  ;  Wolls  r.  Srnith,  -54  Ga.  262, 
263;  Walker  v.  Carrington,  74  III.  440.  465;  Owen  v.  Cawley,  36  N.  Y. 
600,  604  ;  Miller  v.  Peck,  18  W.  Va.  75,  99. 

14  Wilber  v.  Abernethv,  ,54  Ala.  644,  648;  Wood  v.  Terry,  30  Ark. 
385,  393 ;  C'happell  v.  Boyd,  61  Ga.  662,  669  ;  Baron  v.  Voorhtes,  12  La. 
An.  8.52  ;  Kenton  v.  McClellan,  43  Mich.  .564,  566  ;  Lash  v.  Mitchell,  71 
N.  Y.  199,  200. 

15  Woodman  t'.  Neal,  48  Me.  268.    V>\\t  sea  ante,  liil,iZ;  jwst,  I  9IS. 

16  Merrill  v.  Parker,  112  Mass.  250.  2.>3. 

17  McLaren  v.  Hall,  26  Iowa,  297,  .305  ;  infra,  notes  21-24. 

18  Yazel  v.  Palmer,  SI  111.  82,  So  ;  Tooliilge  r.  Smith,  129  Mass.  .5.>1 
5.5S  :  Paine  v.  Farr,  lis  Mass.  74,  77  ;  Merrick  r.  Plumlev,  99  Mass.  573  ; 
Hill  ('.  Chambers,  30  Mich.  428  ;  Early  v.  Rolfe,95  Pa.  St.  58,61  ;  Ham- 
ilton V.  Brooks,  61  Tex.  142, 146. 


125  AGENCY   OF   HUSBAND   FOR   WIFE.  ?  84 

19  Griffin  v.  Ransdell,  71  Inrl.  440,  445  ;  Yazel  v.  Palmar,  Rl  III.  82, 
85;  Coleman  i'.  Semnifs,  56  Miss.  321,  32j;  bpaulding  r.  Drew,  55  Vt. 
253,  257. 

20  Yazel  v.  Palmer,  81  III.  82, 83. 

21  Mann,  50  Pa.  St.  375,  asi. 

22  Low  V.  Gray,  56  Miss.  .318,  320.  But  see  Canty  v.  Sanderford,  37 
Ala,  91  ;  post,  I  121. 

23  Pos^  ch.  xxiii.,  ? J  409,  eiseg. 

24  Wood  V.  Terry,  30  Ark.  .3,83,  39.3. 

.25  Arnold?'.  .Spurr,  130  Msiss.  347,340.  Ratifies  by  accepting  benefit: 
Morrison  v.  Bowman,  29  Cal.  337 ;  Marts  v.  Cumberland, 44  S.3.  L.  478. 

26  Coolidge  v.  Smith,  129  Mass.  .5.54,  557. 

27  Delacroix  v.  Nolan,  7  La.  An.  682. 

28  Merrill  v.  Parker,  112  Mass.  2.50,  2.5.^ 

29  Chappell  v.  Boyd,  Gl  Ga.  662,  669. 

30  Ladd  v.  Hildebrant,  27  Wis.  135, 143  ;  9  Am.  Rep.  445 ;  post,  §  86. 

31  Merrick  r.  Plumbly,  99  Mass.  56B,  .573:  Cooledge  v.  Smith,  129 
Ma.ss.  .5.>1,  b'-^  ;  supra,  n.  18. 

32  Lavassar  v.  Wasliburne,  .50  Wis.  200,  202. 

33  Ames  v.  Hilton,  70  Me.  .%,  47  ;  Comegys  v.  Clarke,  44  Md.  108, 110. 

34  Warner  v.  Warren,  46  N.  Y.  22S,  231 ;  Lavassar  v.  Washburne  50 
Wis.  200,  202  ;  post,  S  110. 

35  Griffin  v.  Ransdell,  71  Ind.  440,  444. 

36  rnl>herlv  v.  Scott,  98  111.  38,  40;  Bellows  v.  Rosenthal,  31  Ind. 
llfi,  lis;  poxl,  J  89. 

37  Rciman  v.  Hamilton,  111  Mass.  245,  246. 

38  Manderback  v.  Mock,  29  Pa.  St.  43,  47. 

39  Early  r.  Rolfe,95Pa.  St.  .58,  f>0. 

40  Bennett  v.  Stout,  98  111.  47,  .52. 

41  Coleman  r\  Semmcs,  .56  Miss.  .321,  329. 

42  Porter  v.  Gamba,  43  Cal.  105, 109  ;  Miller  v.  Peck,  18  W.  Va.  75,  99. 

43  Griffin  v.  Randsell,  71  Ind.  440,  444  ;  Lichtenberger  v.  Graham, 
50  Ind.  288,  290  ;  Burchard  v.  Frazer,  23  Mich.  221,  236. 

44  Wells  V.  Smith,  bi  Ga.  262,  264  ;  Myers  v.  King,  42  Md.  65,  70. 

45  Pike  v.  Baker,  m  111.  163,  167. 

46  Murphy  v.  Bright,  3  Grant,  296. 

47  Wells  V.  Smith,  34  Ga.  262,  261  ;  Cooper  ?'.  Ham,  49  Ind.  49.3,  497, 
cases  cited  ;  Myers  v.  King,  42  Md.  65, 70  ;  Buckley  i:  Wells,  33  N.  Y. 
.51S,  .521 ;  Knapp  v.  Smith.  27  N.  Y.  277,  280  ;  Spooner  v.  Reynolds,  50 
Vt.  437,  444  ;  Miller  v.  Peck,  18  W.  Va.  95,  <W  ;  cases  cited,  p-tst,  J  89. 

43  Wells  V.  Thorman,  37  Conn.  318,  319;  Griffin  r.  Ransdall.  21  Ind. 
440,  444;  Coolidge  r.  Smith,  129  Mass.  5.54,  .55:);  Owen  v,  Cawly,  36 
N.  Y.  600,  605  ;  Early  v.  KoHe,  95  Pa.  St.  58,  60  ;  post,  i  85. 

49  Johnston,  31  Pa.  St.  4.30,  4.54  ;  post,  § 

50  Baker  v.  Roberts,  14  Ind.  5.52,  ,^5.3. 

51  Lindner  v.  Sahler,  .57  Barb.  322  ;  Graves  v.  Spier,  58  Barb.  M9 ; 
post,  cli.  xxiv.    But  see  ante,  I  66. 

52  Ante,  ?  .56. 


g  85  AGENCY   OP   HUSBAND   FOR   WIFE.  126 

§  85.  Scope  of  husband's  authority  as  agent  for  wife.  — 
1.  The  husband's  agency  in  law^  is  co-determinate  with 
his  rights  as  husband  over  his  ^\ife's  person  and  prop- 
erty ;  ^  he  has  no  power  to  act  for  her  in  her  separate 
existence.^  Thus,  as  husband  he  has  no  authority  to 
employ  counsel  to  represent  her  separate  property,* 
and  with  respect  +o  such  property  notice  to  him  is  not 
notice  to  her,^  except  when  he  is  her  agent  in  faci  ;^  ho 
cannot  create  a  mechanic's  lien  on  her  property'  or 
encumber  it  even  for  necessary  repairs ;  ^  or  sell  her 
realty,^  or  personalty  ; '"  or  receipt  for  debts  due  her ; " 
or  i-elease  her  mortgage ;  '^  nor  can  he  make  her  mem- 
ber of  a  business  association  ;"  or  render  her  liable  for 
borrowed  money  ;i*  or  give  her  note  even  for  a  debt 
due  bj'  her.'» 

2.  The  husband's  powers  as  agent  in/act^^  are  meas- 
ured as  in  other  cases  by  the  scope  of  authoritj''  con- 
ferred ;'"  they  are  the  same  as  if  he  were  acting  for  a 
stranger.'^  Thus,  authority  to  collect  a  note  does  not 
give  him  the  power  to  compromise,'*  though  the  gen- 
eral management  of  the  wife's  estate  carries  with  it  the 
power  to  submit  her  riglits  to  arbitration;™  nor  does 
t'-ie  right  to  manage  and  control  include  the  right  to 
sell; 21  nor  can  he  as  agent  to  collect  his  wife's  rent, 
waive  her  right  to  distrain."''''  The  scope  of  liis  authority 
i  i  a  question  of  fact.^  If  he  exceeds  his  authoi-ity  he  is 
personally  liable."'' 

1  Ante,  \\  8-2,  84. 

2  See  Chew  v.  Henrietta,  1  McCrenry  C.  Ct.  222.226  :  White  ?■.  King, 
ST  Ala.  162, 1C7  ;  Gore  v.  Carl,  47  Conn.  2i)l,  •2i):{ ;  Windsor  r.  Uell,  iil  «a. 
fil,  674!;  Nevins  )■.  Gourley,  95  111.  20(!,  2i:i ;  Klein  c.  .Seibolii,  x  )  III.  .'j40, 
h\-\  Johnson  r.  TntowiliT,  'io  Ind.  :i.5:J ;  FitZfjcriUil  v.  MoCartv,  .>> 
1  iwa,  702,  70(1 ;  Davis  v.  Kitt-liie,  .V>  Iowa,  71'J,  721 ;  Price  v.  Li-vd"  I.  4'5 
I  (\va,  filiri  :  ('iia(Il)onrnc  v.  Kockcliff.  30  Me.  iM,  .361  ;  Jarden  v.  l>nni- 
plircv,  :^>  Md.  .'.HI,  ;!6» ;  Kerchnor  v.  Kempton,  47  Md.  .508,  .dss  ;  CaliiU 
)•.  Lee,  5.5  Md.  31'J,  325:  Merrill  v.  Parlcer,  112  Mass.  2,50,  255;  Fort  v. 
Battle,  13  Smedes  &  M.  133,  137  ;  McGehee  v.  White,  31  Miss.  41,  4r.  ; 
(iarnett  r.  Berrv,  3  Mo.  App.  197,  200;  Eystra  v.  Capelle,  61  Mo.  57 -t, 
5-tO  ;  .siilvev  v.  Summer,  61  Mo.  2.53  ;  Atwater  v.  Underhill,  22  N.  J.  Eq. 
539,  604 ;  G"reen  v.  Branton,  1  Dev.  Eq.  500,  5(M ;  Coolidge  v.  Parris,  8 


127  AGENCY   OF   HUSBAND   FOR   WIFE.  g  86 

Ohio  St.  504,  597,  598  ;  Dearie  v.  Martin,  78  Pa.  St.  53,  57 ;  Trimble  v. 
Kels.  37  Pa.  St.  448  ;  Daiidridge  r.  Mitige,  9  Rand.  397,  403  ;  Ladd  v. 
Hildebrant,  27  Wis.  135,  143 ;  9  Am.  Rep.  445.  Consult  anfe,  i  82,  n.  14  ; 
J  84. 

3  Atwater  v.  Underbill,  22  N.  J.  Eq.  599,  604  ;  McLaren  v.  Hall,  26 
Iowa,  2J7,  305. 

4  Kerchner  v.  Kempton.  47  Md.  5ft8,  588. 

5  Treadwell  v.  Hernden,  41  Miss.  46  ;  Pringle  v.  Dunn,  37  Wis  449 ; 
19  Am.  Rep.  772. 

6  White  V.  King,  53  Ala.  1(52, 167  ;  Jarden  v.  Pumphrev,  36  Md  361, 
364  ;  Chew  v.  Henrietta,  1  McCreary  C.  Ct.  222,  226.  Compare  R.  R.  v. 
Brooks,  81  111.  2J3. 

7  Garnett  v.  Berry,  3  Mo.  App.  197,  200.  See  Jarden  v.  Pumphrey, 
36  Md.  ;i61,  .m  ;  Md.  R.  C.  1873,  p.  696,  J  10. 

8  Dearie  v.  Martin,  78  Pa.  St.  53,  .57. 

9  Evstra  v.  Capelle,  61  Mo.  578,  580;  Ladd  v.  Hildebrant,  27  Wis, 
135,  143  ;  9  Am.  Rep.  445. 

10  Klein  v.  Seibold,  89  111.  510,  542. 

11  Gore  V.  Carl,  47  Conn.  291,  293  ;  Windsor  v.  Bell.  61  Ga.  671,  674  ; 
Kevins  v.  (Jourley,  95  III.  206,  213  ;  Trader  i:  Lowe.  45  Md.  412;  Read 
V.  Earle,  12  Gray,  423,  42") ;  Meriill  v.  Parker,  112  Mass.  2.50, 25.5.  Other- 
wise as  to  her  property  n(jt  separate:  Mobley  v.  Leophart,  47  Ala. 
257,  261 ;  Wc^mes,  19  Md.  334,  344 ;  banders  v.  Forgasson,  59  Tenu.  249, 
251 ;  post,  U  243,  386. 

12  Trimble  v.  Reis,  37  Pa.  St.  448. 

13  Boyd  V.  Merrill,  52  111.  151. 

14  Davis  V.  Ritchie,  55  Iowa,  719,  721. 

15  Fitzgerald  v.  McCarty,  55  Iowa,  702,  706. 

16  Ante..  R  82,  84. 

17  Atwaterv.  Underbill, 22 N.  J.  Eq.  599, 604.  See  Bakers.  Roberts, 
14  Ind.  552,  .53  ;  Carver,  .553  Ind.  241,  244 ;  Cahill  v.  Lee,  55  Md.  319,  325 ; 
Merrick  v.  Pluniley,  99  Miss.  .566,  .573 ;  Coleman  v.  Semmes,  56  Miss. 
321,  329  ;  posi.  Married  Womkx  Tkadkks,  ch.  x.xvii. 

18  Llvesley  v.  Lasalette,  28  Wis.  38, 41. 

19  Carver,  53  Ind.  241,244. 

20  Coleman  v.  Semmes,  56  Miss.  3U,  3'29.  He  can  submit  to  arbi- 
tration only  the  rights  he  can  dispose  of:  Milner  i'.  Turner,  4  Mon. 
240,  247  ;  Fort  v.  Battle,  13  Smedes  &  M.  13;{,  i:J7. 

21  O'Brien  v.  Foreman,  46  Cal.  80,  82. 

22  Cahill  v.  Lee,  5.5  Md.  319,  .325. 

23  Merrick  v.  Plumley,  99  Mass.  .566,  .573 ;  Nash  v.  Mitchell,  71  N.  Y. 
199,201;  27  Am.  Kcp.  38. 

24  Wilder  v.  Abernethv,  5!  Ala.  644,  640 ;  25  Am.  Rep.  734  ;  Glover 
V.  Alcott,  11  Mich.  470,  487. 

g  86.  Proof  of  agency  in  fact  of  husband  for  wife. — To 
bind  a  wife  for  tlie  act  of  her  husband  it  must  be  shown 
that  he  did  it  as  her  agent  ^  within  the  scope  of  his 
authority,'^  and  tliat  it  was  an  act  by  which  a  married 


g  86  AGENCY   OF   HUSBAND   FOR   WIFE.  128 

woman  could  be  bound. ^  His  agency  is  proved  as  that 
of  a  stranger's,*  though  the  fact  that  he  is  husband  is 
relevant,^  as  in  most  cases  the  husband  is  tlie  fittest 
person  to  be  his  wife's  agent.^  No  unusual  evidence  is 
required  of  her  to  show  he  acted  as  her  agent  J  though 
when  he  has  been  in  business  in  her  name,*  slight  evi- 
dence will  justif}-  the  inference  that  he  acted  on  his 
own  account.^  And  if  she  shows  that  property  in  his 
possession  belonged  to  her  separate  estate,  he  will, 
unless  a  gift  to  him  is  proved,'"  be  deemed  to  have 
held  it  as  her  agent. '^  So  a  deposit  of  money  by  her 
subject  to  his  order  is  a  mere  power  to  him  to  draw, 
not  a  gift. 12  Possession  of  personal  property  is  prima 
facie  evidence  of  title,'^  and  of  right  to  collect  in  case  of 
a  bond,'*  but  the  possession  may  bo  shown  to  be 
wrongful.'^  To  charge  a  wife  by  agent  strong  evi- 
dence is  said  to  be  necessary. '^  His  declarations  are 
evidence  as  part  of  the  res  gestae.^'' 

1  Ante,  I  84. 

2  Ante,  ?  85. 

3  Kash  t'.  Mitchell,  71  X.  Y.  lon,  201  ;  2T  Am.  Rop.  .IS. 

4  See  Ynzel  r.  Palmer,  81  111.  82,  .s.5  ;  Coolklge  v.  .^mith,  129  Massi 
.^>4,  .55-* ;  Paine  v.  Farr,  118  Muss.  ~A,  77  ;  Merrick  c.  Pluinlcv,  !i«»  Mass. 
57:5 ;  Hill  I'.  Chambers,  :5n  Mich.  42S  ;  Early  v.  Kolfe,  'Jo  Pa".  St.  58,  61  ; 
Hamilton  v.  Brooks,  .51  Tex.  142, 146. 

5  Early  v.  Rolfe,  95  Pa.  .St.  .58,  60. 

6  Bennett  r.  .Stout.  98  111.  47.  .52.  Perhaps,  prima  fncie,  he  is  her 
a?ent  to  do  all  things  which  it  is  customary  for  husbands  to  Uo  for. 
their  wives.    Compare,  ymst,  J  90. 

7  Jlyers  v.  King,  42  Md.  65,  70. 

8  FnM,  ?  87. 

9  Brownell  ?•.  Dixon,  37  111.  197,  207.  See  Erdman  v.  Rosenthal.  CO 
Md.  312,  310. 

•  10  M'ales  V.  Newbould,  9  Mich.  45,  M.  See  Hileman,  85  Ind.  1 ; 
McXally  v.  Weld,  .SO  Minn.  209. 

11  Patten,  75  111.  446, 4-51.  But  see  Dillenberger  v.  Wrisberg,  10  Mo. 
App.  4rw. 

12  Cunningham,  Myr.  Prob.  76,  78  ;  pos/,  ??  127,  128. 

13  Brownell  v.  Dixon,  .•!7  111.  197,  207  ;  pmt,  \  lia. 

14  Griffin  v.  Ransdell,  71  Ind.  440,  445.  : 

15  Yazel  V.  Palmer,  81  111.  82,  85.  _  J 


129  AGEXCY   OF   HUSBAND   FOR  WIFE.  g  87 

16  Carver,  53  Ind.  241,  244  :  Eystra  v.  Capelle,  61  Mo.  578,  580. 

17  Livesley  v.  Lasalette,  28  Wis.  38,  41. 

g  87.  Compensation  of  husband  as  wife's  agent  — 
1.  General  rule.  A  husband  may,  a.s  his  wife's  agent, 
manage  her  separate  property  or  separate  business  ^ 
with  or  without  compensation  ;  ^  but  neither  he  nor  any 
creditor  of  his  has  in  the  absence  of  special  agreement 
any  right  in  the  property  managed,  earned,  or  accumu- 
lated through  his  agency.^  Partnerships  between  hus- 
band and  wife  are  not  included  within  this  discus- 
sion.* 

2.  Express  contract.  Contracts  between  husband  and 
wife  are  in  mu.st  States  void,^  and  tlierefore  tliere  is 
usually  no  express  contract  hj  a  Avife  to  pay  her  hu.s- 
Ijand  for  his  services.*  In  cases  when  such  contract 
can' and  does  exist,  she  may  even  be  made  his  gar- 
nishee;^ but  in  the  ab.sence  of  such  contract  neither  he 
nor  any  creditor  of  his  has  any  right  against  her  or  her 
property.* 

3.  Implied  contract.  There  is  no  implied  contract 
that  a  wife  will  pay  her  husband  for  his  services. '"  His 
first  duty  is  to  support  her  and  his  family,"  and  in 
helping  her  to  make  her  property  productive  he  is  but 
discharging  this  duty,'^  and  is  presumedly  amply  com- 
pensated with  tiie  home  and  support  she  allows  him.'^ 
Moreover,  as  one's  talents  and  capacity  to  labor  are  not 
property,'*  and  as  therefore  no  debtor  can  be  made  to 
Avork  for  his  creditors,''  a  husband  Mho  is  entitled  to 
his  wife's  sei  vices  may  give  them  to  her  even  against 
his  creditors,'*  and  may  likewise  give  her  his  own 
labor, '^  but  not  his  accumulations. '^ 

4.  Apparant  or  pretended  agency.  A  hu.3band  may 
thus  as  his  wife's  agent  manage  her  property  or  busi- 
ness without  acquiring  any  rights  in  said  property  or 
business,  or  subjecting  it  to  the  claims  of  his  creditors.'* 


f  87  AGENCY   OF   HUSBAND    FOR   AVIFE.  130 

But  while  apparently  her  agent  and  pretending  to  act 
in  that  capacity,  he  may  be  conducting  a  business  of 
his  own  under  lier  name  simplj^  for  tlie  purpose  of 
evading  his  creditors,-'*'  or  he  may  be  using  her  proj)- 
erty  as  a  gift  to  iiim  ^i  or  as  a  loan  ;  ^"^  in  such  cases  the 
business  is  his  and  the  remedies  of  his  creditors 
against  the  assets  tliereof  are  fulL^  So  when  she  has 
no  power  by  statute  to  trade,  but  with  his  consent  is  in 
a  business  which  lie  conducts,^*  it  is  his  business;^  the 
right  of  his  creditors  against  a  business  which  he  con- 
ducts can  be  questioned  only  when  by  statute  slie  can 
trade  alone. ^^  When  he  has  been  using  licr  property  in 
his  business,  her  rights  are  at  best  those  of  a  creditor.^' 
In  some  cases  where  a  wife  has  amassed  a  fortune 
througli  the  efforts  of  lier  husband,  it  has  been  held 
that  a  court  of  equity  would  in  favor  of  his  creditors 
make  some  apportionment'-*  —  treat  the  liusband  and 
wife  as  it  were  as  partners.^  Whether  the  Ijusiness  is 
the  husband's  or  tlie  wife's  is  simply  a  question  of  fact,^ 
the  burden  of  proof  being  generally  on  the  wife  to  show 
that  the  business  was  hers.^i  So  whether  there  is  fraud 
is  a  question  of  fact.^^ 

5.  Illustrations.  Thus  where  a  husband  \di\x  his 
team  did  a  great  deal  of  work  on  his  wife's  property, 
and  his  creditors  attempted  to  sell  the  crop  for  his 
debts,  the  court  held  that  he  could  give  to  her  the  labor 
of  himself  and  his  beasts,  and  that  the  accretions  to  her 
property  continued  hers  and  could  not  be  toviched  by 
his  creditors.^'  Where  a  manufacturer  of  large  experi- 
ence failed,  and  then  started  up  again  with  his  wife's 
money  and  in  her  name,  and  made  a  fortune,  the  court 
allowed  her  her  monej'  and  interest,  but  held  the 
remaining  profits  liable  for  his  debts.-'**  Where,  while 
the  wife's  earnings  belonged  to  her  husband,  he  con- 
sented that  she  should  trade  in  her  own  name,  but  took 


131  AGENCY   OF   HUSBAND   FOR   WIFE.  §  87 

part  himself  in  the  business,  the  business  was  held  his, 
and  therefore  liable  for  his  debts.^^ 

6.  Statutes.  In  some  States  there  are  statutes  ex- 
pressly referring  to  this  subject.^* 

1  ^n«€,  ??  84.  85. 

2  SeeLewisv.Johns,24Cal.  98, 103;  Gage  v.  Dauchx,  34  N.  Y.  .293, 
299  ;  Rush  V.  Vought,  55  Pa,  St.  437,  445  ;  Webster  v.  Hildreth,  33  Vt. 
457,  4.58. 

3  See  fullest  discussion  :  Miller  v.  Peck,  18  W.  Va.  85,  79-96. 

4  Except  as  below  :  Seepo«<,  ch.  xxvii. 

5  Scarborough  v.  Watkins,  9  Mon.  B.  .540,  545  ;  ante.  U  41-44. 

6  Gage  V.  Dauchy,  H  N.  Y.  293,  297,  299  ;  Abbey  v.  Deyo,  44  Barb. 
374,  380. 

7  Discussed,  ante,  ??  40-44. 

8  Lewis  f.  Johns,  24  Cal.  98, 103  ;  Keller  v.  Mayer,  55  Ga.  40fi,  410 ; 
Kingman  v.  Franks,  N.  Y.  Sup.  Ct.  Oct.  6,  1884 ;  26  D.  Reg.  937  ;  Miller 
V.  Peck,  18  W.  Va.  75, 100. 

9  Mclntyre  v.  Knowlton,  6  Allen,  .565,  567 ;  Webster  v.  Hildreth,  .33 
Vt.  457,  458 ;  infra,  n.  19. 

10    Lewis  V.  Johns,  24  Cal.  98, 103. 

U  Cooper  V.  Ham,  49  Ind.  393,416;  Com.  v.  Fletcher,  6  Bush,  171, 
172 ;  Gage  v.  Dauchy,  34  N.  Y.  293,  297 ;  Abbey  v.  Deyo,  44  N.  Y.  343, 
346 ;  ante,  i  64. 

12  Cooper  v.  Ham,  49  Ind.  393,  416. 

13  Mclntyre  v.  Knowlton,  6  Allen,  565,  566. 

14  Cases  cited  infra,  notes  15, 16. 

15  Abbey  v.  Devo,  44  N.  Y.  343,  MT,  Rush  r.  Vought,  Zo  Pa.  St.  4S7, 
445  ;  Hodges  t>.  Cobb,  8  Rich.  50,  56. 

16  Peterson  v.  Mulford,  36  N.  J.  L.  481,  487  ;  Hoyt  v.  White,  46  N.  H. 
45,  47  ;  ante,  i  65.  He  cannot  give  her  money  already  earned  by  her : 
Ante,  i  65. 

17  Miller  v.  Peck,  18  W.  Va.  75,  99  ;  infra,  n.  19. 

18  Isham  v.  Shafer,  60  Barb.  317,  .3:il  ;  Rush  v.  Vought,  55  Pa.  St. 
437, 445  ;  Holdship  v.  Patterson,  7  Watts,  ,547. 

19  Aldridge  v.  Muirhead,  101  U.  S.  397,  399;  Voorhes  v.  Bonesteel, 
16  Wall.  16,  31 ;  Lewis  v.  Johns,  24  Cal.  98,  103 ;  Coon  v.  Rigden,  4  Colo. 
275,  287,  288 ;  Martinez  v.  Ward,  19  Fla.  175,  \Ss,  1S9  ;  Keller  v  Mayer, 
65  Ga.  406,  409 ;  Wells  v.  Smith,  54  Ga,  262,  264 ;  Olsen  v.  Kern,  10  111. 
App.  578,  582  ;  Langford  v.  Ghieson,  5  111.  App.  :«2  ;  Cubberly  v.  Scott, 
98  111.  3^,40;  Bongard  v.  Core,  82  HL  19,20;  Bellows  ti.  Rosenthal,  31 
Ind.  116,  118;  Cooper  v.  Ham,  49  Ind.  .393,  400,  citing  many  cases; 
Cam  %).  Roves,  55  Iowa,  650  ;  Parker  v.  Bates,  29  Kan.  .597  ;  Com.  v. 
Fletcher,  6  Bush,  171,  172;  Mclntvre  r.  Knowlton,  6  Allen,  .56.5,  .567; 
Merrick  v.  Plumley,  29  Mass.  .566;  Rankin  v.  West,  25  Mich.  200; 
Hossfeldt  V.  Diil.  28  Minn.  469;  H.imilton  v.  Booth,  .5.5  Miss.  bO!  30 
Am.  Rep.  500 ;  Gloss  v.  Thomas,  6  Mo.  App.  157  ;  Abbey  v.  Deyo,  44 
K.  Y.  Ui,  346;  44  Barb.  382;  Owen  v.  Cawley,  :«  N.  Y.  600,  604,  605; 
Smith  V.  Sweeny,  35  N.  Y.  234,  2.35;  Gage  v.  Dauchy,  34  N.  Y.  293,  297, 
299  ;  Buckley  v.  Wells,  33  N.  Y.  518,  521 ;  Knapp  v.  Smith,  27  N.  Y.  277, 
280 ;  Rush  V.  Vought,  56  Pa.  St.  437,  445 ;  Holdship  v.  Patterson,  7 


§  88  AGENCY   OF   HUSBAND   FOR  WIFE.  132 

Watts,  547  ;  Hodffes  v.  Cobb,  8  Rich.  50,  56  ;  Webster  v.  Hlldreth,  33 
Vt.  457,  458  ;  Miller  v.  Peck,  18  W.  Va.  75,  79-!)",  citing  many  cases  ; 
Feller  V.  AUlen,  23  Wis.  :JOI,  :»4 ;  Boss  v.  Gomber,  23  Wis.  284,  280; 
Dayton  v.  Walsh,  47  Wis.  113;  32  Am.  Rep.  757.  But  see  Penn  v. 
Whiteheads,  12  Gratt.  74,  80  ;  Wilson  v.  Loomis,  55  III.  352,  354.  Com- 
pare cases  infra,  n.  28. 

20  See  Hurlbut  v.  Jones,  25  Cal.  225  ;  Wortman  v.  Price,  47  111.  2^  ; 
Brownell  v.  Dixon,  37  111.  108,208;  Cooper  ?'.  Ham,  4;i  Ind.  3a:j,  4I(); 
Laing  II.  Cnnningham,  17  Iowa,  510  ;  National  v.  Spragne,  20  N.  J.  Eq. 
13.25;  Knapp  v.  Smith,  27  N.  Y.  277,280;  Woodsworth  v.  Sweet,  51 
N.  Y.  8  ;  Gage  v.  Dauchy,  34  N.  Y.  2y3,  298. 

21  See  Dent  v.  Sloug-h,  40  Ala.  518 ;  Freeman  v.  Orrer,  5  Duer,  476. 

22  Glidden  v.  Taylor,  16  Ohio  St.  509,  520. 

23  Brownell  v.  Dixon,  .37  111.  198,  208 ;  Gage  v.  Dauchy,  31  X.  Y.  293, 
298. 

ai    National  v.  Sprague,  20  N.  J.  Eq.  13,  25. 

25  Wortman  v.  Price,  47  111.  22,  24  ;  Erdman  v.  Rosenthal,  60  Md. 
312,  310 ;  Abbey  v.  Deyo,  44  N.  Y.  343, 347 ;  Bucher  v.  Ream,  68  Pa.  St. 
421,  426. 

26  Shackleford,  6  Bush,  149,  159.    See  Wortman  v.  Price,  47  III.  22, 
24;  Alt  V.  I.aforette,  9  Mo.  App.  91  ;   Pawley  v.  Vogel,  42  Mo.  21)1; 
Lvman  v.  Place,  20  N.  .1.  Eq.  30  ;  National  v.  Spragne,  20  N.  .T.  Eq.  13, 
25";  Quidort  v.  Pergeaux,  18  N.  J.  Eq.  472,  4S0  ;  Bucher  v.  Ream,  68" 
Pa.  St.  421,426. 

27  Wortman  v.  Price,  47  III.  22,  24  ;  Glidden  v.  Tavlor,  IG  Ohio  St. 
509,  521 ;  inf7-a,  notes  21,  26. 

28  Cooper  v.  Ham,  49  Ind.  393,  416  ;  Com.  v.  Fletcher,  6  Bush,  171, 
172;  Glidden  ?;.  Taylor,  16  Ohio  St.  509,520;  Feller  v.  Alden,  23  Wis. 
301,  305. 

29  In  Glidden  v.  Taylor,  16  Ohio  St.  -Wi.  the  wife  wnn  allowed  only 
her  money  and  legal  interest  ;  in  Xatioiial  r.  Sjirague,  20  N.  .1.  Eq.  13, 
the  %yh(ile  was  held  liable  for  the  liiisbaiid's  debts.  To  treat  them  as 
partners  would  be  fairer  when  there  is  really  a  mingling  of  goods, 
etc. :  I'ost,  I  129. 

30  Keller  V.  Maver,  55  Ga.  406,  409  ;  Knapp  v.  Smith,  27  N.  Y.  277, 
280  ;  .\libe>  r.  Deyo,  44  N.  Y.  343, 347.  Of  course,  her  capacity  to  trade 
is  a  question  of  la%y. 

31  Discussed,  pout,  ??  118-121. 

32  Myers  r.  King,  42  Md.  65,  70 ;  ante,  ?  86. 

33  Miller  v.  Peck,  IS  W.  Va.  95,  102. 

»1    Glidden  %\  Taylor,  16  Ohio  St.  509,  520,  521. 

35  National  v.  Sprague,  20  N.  J.  Eq.  13,  2.5. 

36  Se(!  Porter  v.  Gomba,  43  Cal.  165, 160 ;  Youngworth  v.  Jewell  15 
Nev.  45. 

\  88.  Instances  and  illustrations  of  husband's  agency  for 
wife.  —  When  a  husband  holds  what  is  shown  to  be  liis 
wife's  separate  property'  he  is  presumed  to  hoUi  it  as 
her  agent, •  unless  he  proves  a  gift  or  loan  from  her  to 
him,'  and  the  increase  and  profits  thereof  coming  into 


133  AGENCY   OF  HUSBAND   FOU   WIFE.  I  88 

his  hands  are  prima  facie  hers,  and  are  free  from  any 
claim  of  his  crediliors.''  So  property'  bought  for  her 
with  her  money  is  prima  facie  hers/  and  she  maj^  shoAv 
that  though  he  used  his  moncj'  he  bouglit  for  her,°  If 
he  lives  and  works  on  his  wife's  estate  he  may  do  so  as 
tenant,''  or  as  agent  and  guest ; "  and  if  he  trades  with 
her  money  he  may  do  so  as  her  agent, ^  her  creditor ,9  or 
her  donee. 1"  If  he  improvers  her  properirj''  the  improve- 
ments are  hers.^i  If  in  exchanging '-or  buying'-*  prop- 
erty for  her  he  commits  a  fraud,  slie  is  liable.  A  statute 
providing  that  she  may  carry  on  business,  but  not 
when  it  is  inanaged  by  her  husband,  merely  protects 
his  creditors  and  does  not  remove  her  liability."  If 
she  gives  her  husband  an  order  for  her  share  of  an 
estate  and  it  is  paid  him,  she  is  bound  though  lie  never 
pays  it  over  to  her.'^  Property  of  hers  which  is  his  by 
martial  right,  is  his  although  he  receives  it  as  her  agent 
in  fact.'*  In  procuring  a  policj^  on  his  life  issued  in  her 
name  and  for  her  l)enefit  a  husband  acts  simply  as  his 
wife's  agent. '^  When  a  husband  contracts  for  his  wife 
in  his  own  name  he  may  sue  on  the  contract  in  his  own 
name.'^ 

1  Spe  Stewart  v.  Ball,  33  Mo.  lofi  ;  :^tplliiig(^r  •;'.  Bailsman,  45  Pa. 
St.  522  ;  GrahiU  (>.  Moyer,  46  Pa.  St.  5;;0. 

2  Wales  v.   Newbould,  9  Mich.  45,  64  ;  nnte,  l  8fi.     Compare  aiile, 

•     3    Buckley  v.  Wells,  a3  N.  Y.  518,  521 ;  ante,  i  87. 

4  Davis  V.  Fredericks,  104  TT.  s.  filS  ;  Mison  v.  Bowles,  117  Mass. 
8". :  Spooii'T  V.  Ile.vjiolds,  50  Vt.  4:!7,  444.  Compare  Moulton  v.  Halov, 
57  N.  H.  184 ;  ante,  I  42. 

5  Myers  v.  King,  42  Md.  65,  70. 

6  EliJTh  V.  Taylor,  37  111.  247,  240  ;  Duncan  v.  Jackson,  7  111.  App. 
110;  Mooreland  v.  M.vuil,  14  Bush,  474. 

7  Boss  ?'.  Gombor,  23  Wis.  284,  286.  See  Stout  r.  Perrv,  70  Ind.  501. 
Compare  Xeal  v.  Perkerson,  61  Ga.  345  ;  Fiske  v.  Bailey,  51   N.  Y. 

151. 

8  Cooper  v.  Ham,  40  Ind.  393,  416  ;  ante,  i  87. 

.    9    Glidden  v.  Taylor,  16  Ohio  St.  50:),  521  ;  ante,  ?  87. 

10  Dent  )■.  Slough,  40  Ala.  518  ;  T^ichtenberger  v.  Graham,  50  Ind. 
288  ;  ante,  ?  87. 

IT.  &  W.-12. 


§  89  AGENCY  OF  WIFE   FOR  UUSBAND.  134 

U  Swaine  v.  Daane,  48  Cal.  3.>S  ;  Robinson  r.  Huffman,  15  Mon.  B. 
80, 83  ;  WUkinson,  I  Head,  305,  310  ;  White  v.  HUdretU,  Si  Vt.  261,  l!67  ; 
post,  ?  131. 

12  See  Vanneman  v.  Powers,  7  Lans.  18.i ;  Baum  v.  Mullen,  47 
N.  Y.  57:);  Graves  v.  Spier,  53  Barb.  363.  Not  formerly  BirUseye  v. 
Flint,  3  Barb.  500. 

13  E.  R.  r.  Brooks,  81  111.  293.    See  Baum  i'.  JIullon,  47  X.  Y.  577. 

14  Porter  i\  Gamba,  43  Cal.  105,  103. 

15  Clark  r>.  Smith,  13  S.  C.  5S5. 

Ifi    Kidwell  V.  Kirk,^atrick,  70  5Io.  214.    Compare  Westmoreland  v. 
Foster,  60  Ala.  448. 
17    Southern  v.  Booker,  n  Ilolsk.  606. 
13    Wilson  V.  Sands,  36  Md.  33,  41. 


Article  III,  —  Agency  of  Wife  for  Husband. 

{  83.  Appointment  of  wife. 

J  no.  Wife's  agency  arising  out  of  husband's  absence,  etc. 

i  91.  Illustrations  of  wife's  want  of  authority. 

?  92,  Scope  of  wife's  authority. 

5  9:J.  Wife  as  husband's  agent  In  business, 

i  94.  Wife  as  husband's  agent  in  household. 

{  95.  Wife  as  iiusband's  agent  for  necessaries. 

i  96.  Authorities  as  to  necessaries. 

{  97.  Proof  of  wife's  ageney  for  husband. 

{  98.  Determination  of  wife's  agency  for  husband. 

g  89.  Appointmont  of  wife  as  husband's  agent.  —  A  wife 
may  act  as  her  husband's  agent  either  by  his  authoriza- 
tion or  by  autlioritj'  of  law.'^  Slie  has,  however,  no 
authority  in  hiw  to  act  for  him,'  except  for  the  pur- 
pose of  realizing  her  right  to  support;*  in  all  oilier 
cases  any  act  of  liers  to  be  liis  must  have,  expressly  or 
impliedly,^  his  jirior  authoritj'  contemporaneous  assent, 
or  subsequent  ratification.® 

1.  Prior  authority.  If  a  man  places' his  wife  at  the 
head  of  the  household,*  or  in  charge  of  his  business*  or 
property,"  he  confers  upon  her  such  powers  as  persons 
in  these  positions  usually  exercise,'^  He  may  make 
her  his  agent  in  a  purcliase  by  promising  her  to  pay  for 
what  she  buys  on  his  credit,''^  or  in  a  sale  by  writing  to 


135  AGENCY   OF  WIFE   FOR   HUSBAND.  ^  89 

her  to  sell  his  good-j  and  pay  his  debts  ;>*  or  generally, 
by  power  of  attorney."  So  he  may  make  her  a  special 
agent  to  collect  rents/'  and  by  telling  another  person  to 
pay  to  her  he  makes  her  his  agent  to  receive.^^  So  by 
ratifying  her  acLs  on  one  occasion  he  may  constitute 
her  Ms  agent  for  future  acts  of  the  same  kind." 

2.  Asse7it  estoppel.  If,  tliough  his  wife  has  no  author- 
it}^  to  act  for  him,  a  husband  stands  by  and  sees  her  do 
so  witliout  objection,  and  a  tliird  party  relying  on  this 
deals  with  her,  he  is  estopped  from  denj'ing  her  author- 
ity.'»  Thus,  if  he  sees  her  selling  her  proi^erty,'^  or  his 
property  ^  without  asserting  his  rights,  he  cannot  after- 
wards deny  her  right  to  sell ;  so  if  he  suffers  her  to 
collect  debts,'^!  which  in  law  are  his.-"^  But  his  mere 
knowledge  that  she  is  making  contracts  does  not  render 
him  liable  on  them.^*  He  is  liable  for  her  torts'^  and. 
crimes  '^  committed  in  his  presence. 

3.  Ratification.  If  his  wife  witliout  authority  has 
done  some  act  for  him,'^^  m^j^j  \^q  subsequently  with  full 
knowledge  of  the  facts'^  recognizes  it  as  his,  he  ratifies 
her  act  and  makes  it  liis.*  Thus,  he  ratifies  her  act 
when  he  accepts  a  boiler,'^  or  liquor,^^  ordered  by  her 
on  his  account ;  when  he  says  a  note  she  has  signed  in 
his  name  is  all  right,''  or  promises  to  pay  for  something 
bought  in  his  name;*'^  when  he  delivers  property  of 
his  which  she  has  sold ;  ^  or  when  he  sees  her  using 
goods  she  has  bought  on  his  credit ''  and  does  not 
object.^  He  may  ratify  some  acts  Avithout  ratifying 
all.^^  But  he  does  not  by  resuming  cohabitation  witli 
his  wife  ratify  her  acts  done  during  a  separation.^^ 

4.  Exception.  If  the  wife  has  acted  and  has  been 
dealt  with  on  her  own  account,  her  liusband  is  not  liable 
for  her  acts  ;^8  \i  j;^  doubtful  whether  he  can  ratify  such 
acts,'*  or  render  himself  liable  therefor  except  on  a  new 
consideration.^**    Thus,  where  a  lightning  rod  agent  on 


§  89  AGEXCY   OP   WIFE    FOR   HUSBAND.  133 

her  order  and  credit  put  rods  on  her  husband's  house, 
he  was  held  not  liable."  So  where  goods  were  so  sup- 
plied to  her.*2  To  whom  credit  was  gh'en  is  a  question 
of  fact  for  the  jury.^^ 

1  Bir'lsall  V.  Dunn.  10  Wis.  235,  •2:!S.  See  DorUl  v.  Acklom,  (5  M;in. 
&  (4.  67:MW1  ;  ]Ju:iiialio(!  ?•.  Williams,  2-1  Ark.  2fi4,  208;  Benjamin.  15 
Conn.  Ml,  .iTA  ;  3)  Am.  Dec.  :«4  ;  isingleton  v.  Maiiii,  3  Mo.  4Go,  468  ; 
Savage  v.  Davis,  18  Wis.  (iOS,  612. 

2  Ante.  \  82. 

3  I^-ijumin.  15  Conn.  347,  3.>1 ;  31  Kvc\..  Dec.  3S4  ;  Wheeler  v.  Mor- 
gan, 2'J  iCaii.  Sri ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  \  ISO  ;  ante,  \  (!4  ;  post,  i  91. 

4  Stewart  il.  &  D.  ?  ISO ;  post,  ??  !)0,  9o ;  ante,  §  64. 

5  S.ivvyer  v.  Cutting,  23  Vt.  4.^6, 430  ;  post,  I  97. 

6  Debenham  v.  Mellon,  Law  R.  5  Q.  B.  D.  3M,  402  ;  Law  K.  fi  A  pp. 
C.  24,  33;  Benjamin.  15  fonn.  :M7,  :«1  :  3)  Am.  Dec.  .'iSl  :  Ho'ch  v. 
Miles,  2  Conn.  (i3,H,  (U5  ;  Goflfrev  v.  Brooks.  5  Har.  (Del.;  3!)(i  ;  (inlick 
V.  Urover,  .31  N.  J.  L.  lfS2,  1S4  ;  33  X.  J.  L.  463  ;  Hopkins  c.  MoUinieu.x, 
4  Wend.  465,  467;  Wehster  i\  McGinnls,  h  Binn.  23.5,  236;  Reakert  i'. 
Saiifortl,  5  Watts  &  S.  164,  16S  ;  Leeds  v.  Vail,  15  Pa.  St.  1.S5,  IHS  ;  De 
Hov  I'.  Dennis,  14  Rich.  Eq.  27  :  Meader  v.  Page.  .3-1  Vt.  306,  30'i.  310  ; 
Delano  )>.  Blancliard,  52  Vt.  .578,  584 ;  Butts  v.  Newton,  2J  Wi.s.  6i2, 
63J  ;  cases  pos<,  J  91. 

7  Til"  mere  fT-t  that  she  lives  in  his  house  or  attends  to  his  busi- 
ness is  prima  facie  evidence  of  this :  Post,  H  93,  94,  97. 

8  See  Fllker  r.  Emerson,  16  Ohio  St.  653,  G-j5  ;  42  Am.  Dec.  5)2; 
Savage  v.  Duvis,  18  Wis.  603,013;  post,  'i  94. 

9  See  Rotch  v.  Miles,  2  Conn.  63S,  615;  Jenkins  v.  Flinn,  37  Ind. 
34S,  352  ;  Webster  v.  McGinnis,  5  Biiin.  2.30,  236  ;  jmst,  ?  93. 

10  See  Benjamin,  15  Conn.  347,  356  ;  3.T  Am.  Dec.  3S4  ;  post,  i  90. 

11  Po.?^  ?|  90,  92. 

12  Day  v.  Burnham,  36  Vt.  37,  .39. 

13  Shoemaker  v.  Kunkle,  5  Watts,  107,  IOS. 

14  Whitten,  3  Cush.  101, 193,  197. 

15  Cheney  v.  PL>rce,  38  Vt.  515,  52.5. 

16  Stall  !).  Meek,  70  Pa.  St.  IHl,  1S2. 

17  Compare  Filiner  r.  Lynn,  4  Nev.  &  M.  .5.59,  .562  ;  and  Bray  v. 
Beard,  5  Mo.  App.  534.    .S  'e  j/ost,  i  94. 

IS  See  Thra.sh'^r  ?•.  Tuttle.  22  Me.  3:a.  336 :  HuflT  v.  Pri"e,  .50  Mo.  228, 
230  :  R'sikert  v.  Sanford,  5  Watts  &  S.  164,  I6S  ;  Delano  v.  Blanchard, 
52  Vt.  .578,  .584.     Compare  ante,  ?  84. 

19  Huff  V.  Price,  50  Mo.  228,  230.  Compare  Cheney  v.  Pierce,  38  Vt. 
515,  52.5. 

20  Delano  v.  Blanchard,  .52  Vt.  -578,  5S4. 

21  Thrasher  v.  Tuttle,  22  Me.  335,  .3:}6. 

22  Post,  ?  176. 

23  Reakert  v.  Sanford,  5  Watts  &  S.  164,  16S.    Seepo««,  §  97. 

24  Ante,  i  66. 

25  Ante,i(i% 


137  AGENCY   OF  WIFE   FOrt   HUSBAND.  ^  90 

2fi  Not  if  she  acts  aiirl  is  dealt  witli  on  her  own  account:  Mei;i"rs 
V.  Munsoii,  53  IikI.  13S,  W..  See  infra,  n.  ;is.  He  can  ratify  it  if  it  is 
clone  for  lier  benefit :   Millard  v.  Harvey,  34  Beav.  237. 

27    Gulick  V.  Grover,  33  N.  J.  L.  463,  467. 

2^  Micls'leb^rry  r.  Harvey,  58  Ind.  523,  5-5  ;  Hopkins  v.  Mollinieux, 
4  Went.  465,  467  ;  Sawyer  v.  Cutting,  23  Vt.  4.W,  4J0  ;  post,  i  97. 

29  Hill  It.  Sewalil,  5 ;  Pa.  St.  271,  273. 

30  Tuttle  V.  Holland,  4  !  Vt.  542,  545. 

31  Shaw  I'.  Emery,  33  Mo.  434,  480.  See  Dresel  v.  Jordan,  104  Mass. 
407,  413. 

32  Day  v.  Burnham,  36  Vt.  37,  39. 

33  Pike  v.  Baker,  53  111.  163,  166. 

34  Cothran  v.  Lee,  24  Ala.  380.  381 ;  Oilman  v.  Andrus,  28  Vt.  241,  242. 

35  Heney  v.  Sargent,  .54  Cal.  306,  317. 

36  Butts  V.  Newton ,  2a  Wis.  632,  MO. 

37  Oiiison  V.  H-rili?',  45  Inl.  73,  76;  15  Am.  Rep.  258.  But  see 
Rennick  v.  Ficklin,  5  Mon.  B.  166. 

38  See  Bentley  v.  Griffin,  5  Taunt.  3.50;  Taylor  ^i.  Brltton,  1  Car. 
&  P.  144,  n.  ;  Dixon  v.  Hurrell,  8  Car.  &  P.  817  ;  Metcalfe  v.  Shaw,  3 
Camp.  22  ;  Harvy  v.  Norton,  4  Jur.  42,  43  ;  Jewsbury  v.  Newbold,  26 
Law  J.  Ex.  247 ;  Pearson  v.  Darrington,  32  Ala.  227,  241,  242 ;  Taylor  v. 
Shelton,  30  Conn.  122,  127,  i:S  ;  Morris  v.  Root,  65  Ga.  686,  688  ;  Con- 
nerat  v.  Goldsmith,  6  Ga.  14 ;  Jenkins  v.  Fliiin,  37  Ind.  34!i,  352  ;  Mein- 
ers  V.  Munson,  53  Ind.  138,  142  ;  Weisker  v.  Lowenthal,  31  Md.  413,  418; 
Powers  V.  Rnssell,  26  Mich.  17!t ;  Swett  v.  Pcnrire,  24  Miss.  416  ;  Cook 
II.  Ligon,  54  Miss.  3r,S  ;  Hill  r.  Gor)rlrich,  46  N.  H.  41 ;  Wilson  v.  Her- 
bert, 41  N.J.  L.  454,  461  ;  Stimniers  v.  Macomb,  2  Wend.  454  ;  Sim- 
mons ?'.  McElwain,  26  Barb.  420;  Moses  v.  Fogartie,  2  Hill  (S.  C.) 
.335;  Happek  v.  Hartbv,  7  K.ixt.  411,  414  ;  Catron  c  Warren,  1  Cold. 
a58  ;  Roberts  r.  Kellev,  51  Vt.  97,  101  ;  Bugbee  v.  Blood,  48  Vt.  497,  501 ; 
Carter  v.  Howard,  39  Vt.  106,  110. 

39  Meiners  v.  Munson,  53  Ind.  138,  142. 

40  Hapi>ek  v.  Hartby,  7  Baxt.  411,  414. 

41  Meiners D.  Munson,  53  Ind.  138,  142. 

42  Weisker  v.  Lowenthal,  31  Md.  413,  418. 

43  Bentlev  v.  Griffin,  5  Taunt.  356;  .lewsbury  v.  Newbold,  26  Law 
J.  Ex.  247  ;  Weisker  v.  Lowenthal,  31  Md.  413  ;  supra,  n.  :«  ;  post,  l  97. 

g  90.  Wife's  agency  for  husband  ariiinj  from  his  absence 
or  sickness.  —  If  a  husband  is  absent  u'oni  home  and  has 
left  his  wife  in  charge  of  his  house,  liis  business,  or  his 
property,  she  has,  as  his  agent,  such  powers  Avith  res- 
pect thereto  as  persons  in  such  positions  of  trust  usu- 
ally exercise  ;i  and  her  powers  are  more  extensive  if 
his  absence  is  long.^  While,  except  in  eases  where  slie 
jiledges  his  credit  for  support  wliich  he  owes  but  de- 
nies her,'  her  agency  for  him.  is  a  mere  question  of 


g  90  AGENCY   OP   WIFE   FOR   HUSBAXD.  138 

fact,*  and  he  is  not  bound  by  her  acts  if  he  has  forbid- 
den her  to  act  for  liim,  whether  the  party  who  seeks  to 
bind  him  knew  of  such  prohibition  or  not,"  yet  if  he 
holds  her  out  or  allows  her  to  act  as  his  agent,  he  is 
estopped  from  setting  up  any  secret  instructions  to 
her; 6  and,  therefore,  it  seems,  if  lie  has  left  her  in 
charge  of  his  affairs,  his  private  directions  do  not  limit 
her  authority  to  act  for  him.'  To  illustrate :  During 
her  husband's  absence  a  wife  is  the  head  of  the  family,^ 
and  may  do  all  things  relating  to  the  family  and  family 
home,  whicli  wives  usually  do;'  she  may  throw  open 
her  husband's  house  in  hospitality^ ; '"  she  may  employ 
laborers  for  his  farni;^'  slie  may  repair  his  property,''^ 
and  do  all  tilings  neeessar^^  to  preserve  it;"  she  may 
employ  counsel  to  protect  his  rights ;  '*  she  may  feed 
his  cattle  with  his  crops  ;  ^''  she  may  hire  out  liis  liorse, 
perliaps,'6  and  she  may  cany  on  his  business  in  the 
usual  way."  But  she  lias  only  usual  and  customary 
powers ;  '^  she  cannot  make  a  contract  for  him  cnit  of 
the  ordinary  course  of  his  business  and  at  special 
rates;''  she  cannot  sell  his  property,"^"  unless  this  is 
necessary  to  i^rocure  sui^port,-''  or  he  has  abandoned 
all  riglits  in  it  to  her ;  ^'  she  cannot  revoke  a  special 
license  given  by  him  to  enter  his  premises,^  or  give  a 
license  wliicli  he  cannot  revoke.'^'  Wliere  her  husband 
is  ill  she  has  much  the  same  powers  as  wlien  lie  is 
absent.'^  But  his  lunacy  deprives  her  of  all  autliority 
in  fact,^  save  to  put  liim  in  an  asj'lum.-' 

In  all  these  cases,  however,  she  may  have  authority 
in  law  and  by  the  mere  fact  that  she  is  his  wife  to 
pledge  his  credit  for  necessaries,'*  or  to  sell  his  goods 
for  necessary  support  for  herself  and  family.-* 

1  Krebs  v.  O'Gradv,  23  Ala.  7ifi.  732;  Lawrence  »•.  Spear,  17  Cal. 
421,  424  ;  Benjamin,  15  Conn.  347,  353,  3.54;  39  Am.  Dec.  :«4  ;  Rotcli  v. 
Miles,  2  Conn.  fi38,  645;  Kellogg  v.  Robinson,  :{2  Conn.  .3;J5,  341  ;  Cas- 
teel,  S  Blackf.  240,  242  ;  44  Am.  Dec.  763  ;  Fi.sher  v.  Conwav,  21  Kan.  18, 
24 ;   Buford  v.  Speed,  11  Bush,  338,  343  ;  Scbindel,  13  Md.  108,  120 ; 


139  AGENCY  OF  "WIFE   FOR  HUSBAND.  §  90 

Edgerlv  v.  Whalan,  100  Mass.  307,  SOS ;  Nelson  v.  Garey,  114  Mass.  418, 
41i» ;  Chamberlain  t\  Davis,  Xj  X.  Y.  121, 129  ;  Brouer  v.  Vanderburgh, 
31  Barb.  6-18,  (U;) ;  Church  c.  X.aiulers,  10  Weiul.  7il,  8n  ;  Cox  v.  Hoff- 
man, 4  Dev.  &  B.  180,  181  ;  Rosenthal  c.  Mavhugb,  33  Ohio  St.  155,  161  ; 
Alexander  v.  Miller,  H!  Pa.  M.  210,  220  ;  Webster  r.  :Me(iinnis,  5  Bum. 
23-5,  2:16;  Hell  v.  Sewald,  .52  Pa.  St.  271  ;  Humes  v.  Taber,  1  R.  I.  4ft4, 
473;  Cheek  v.  Bellows,  17  Tex.  fil3,  616;  Meader  v.  Page,  3!»  Vt.  :i06, 
:«8;  Spencer  v.  Storrs,  :i8  Vt.  156,  158  ;  Sa%vyer  v.  Cutting,  23  Vt.  486, 
490  ;  Felker  v.  Emerson,  16  Vt.  653,  655 ;  42  Am.  Dec.  532  ;  Savage  r. 
Davis,  18  Wis.  608,  612  ;  Butts  v.  Newton,  29  Wis.  032,  639  ;  Stewart 
M.  &  D.  i  174. 

2  Meader  v.  Page,  33  Vt.  306.  309. 

3  Benjamin,  15  Conn.  347,  3M  ;  39  Am.  Dec.  334  ;  Stewart  M.  &  D. 
?  180. 

.  4  Debenham  v.  Mellon,  Law  R.  5  Q.  B.  D.  394, 402  ;  Law  R.  6  App.  C. 
24,33;  Rotch  v.  Miles,  2  Conn.  638,  645;  Godfrey  v.  Brooks,  5  Har. 
(Del.)  .396;  Gulick  r.  Grover,  31  N.  J.  Eq.  182,  184;  33  N.  J.  Eq.  463; 
Hopkins  1'.  Mollinleux,4  Wend.  465, 467  ;  Reakert  v.  Sanford,5  Watts 
&  H.  164, 168  ;  Leeds  v.  Vail,  15  Pa.  St.  ia5,  ia8;  DeHay  v.  Dennis,  14 
Rich.  Eq.  27  ;  Meader  v.  Page,  3)  \'t.  306,  .309,  310  ;  Delano  v.  Blanch- 
ard,  52  Vt.  578,  .584  ;  Butts  v.  Newton,  29  Wis.  632,  630. 

5  Debenham  v.  Jl'dlon.  Law  R.  6  App.  C.  24,  32  ;  Law  R.  5  Q.B.  D. 
394,  399,  401 ;  Jolly  v.  Hecs,  15  Com.  B.  N.  S.  628  ;  Clark  v.  Cos,  32  Mich. 
204, 213 :  Keller  v.  Phillips,  39  Ves.  351.  Compare  Barr  v.  Armstong,  56 
Mo.  577,  581,  .588. 

6  Debenham  »>.  Mellon,  Law  R.  6  App.  C.  24,33.  See  Thrasher  v. 
Tnttle,  22  Jle.  335, 33'! ;  Huff  v.  Price,  50  Mo.  228,  2:»  ;  Reakert  v.  San 
ford,  5  Watts  &  S.  164,  168 ;  Delano  v.  Blanchard,  52  Vt.  578,  584. 

7  Church  v.  Landers,  10  Wend.  79,  80.  See  Rotch  v.  Miles,  2  Conn. 
638,  649. 

8  Felker  v.  Emerson,  16  Vt.  653,  655  ;  42  Am.  Dec.  532  ;  Sawyer  v. 
Cutting,  23  Vt.  4s6,  490. 

9  Benjamin,  15  Conn.  347,  3.58  ;  39  Am.  Dec.  384 ;  Weaver  v.  Page, 
39  Vt.  306,  .309;  Savage  v.  Davis,  18  Wis.  608,  613. 

10  Humes  v.  Taber,  1  R.  I.  464,  473. 

11  Rotch  V.  Miles,  2  Conn.  038,  646. 

12  McAfee  v.  Robertson,  41  Tex.  355,  3.58. 

13  Butts  V.  Newton,  29  Wis.  072,  639. 

14  Rotch  I'.  Miles,  2  Conn.  464,  473  ;  Buford  v.  Speed,  11  Bush,  338, 
343. 

15  Felker  v.  Emerson,  16  Vt.  0.53,  655  ;  42  Am.  Dec.  532. 

10  Church  1'.  Landers,  10  Wend.  79,  SO.  But  see  Savage  v.  Davis,  IS 
Wis.  608,  610,  614. 

17  Krebs  v.  O'Grady,  23  Ala.  720,  732  ;  58  Am.  Dec.  312. 

18  Sawyer  v.  Cutting,  2!  Vt.  ISO,  490. 

19  Reakert  v.  Sanford,  5  Watts  &  S.  104,  168. 

20  Butts  V.  Newton.  29  Wis.  632,  639.  See  Benjamin,  15  Conn.  347, 
a53,  3.54  ;  39  Am.  Dec.  384. 

21  Lawrence  v.  Spear,  17  Cal.  421,  424  ;  infra,  n.  29. 

22  Butts  ('.  Newton.  29  Wis.  632,  638  ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  5  177. 

23  Kellogg  V.  Robinson,  32  Conn.  Sio,  341. 

24  Nelson  v.  Gray,  114  Mass.  418,  419. 


I  91  AGENCY   OF   WIFE   FOR   HUSBAND.  140 

25  Alexander  v.  Miller,  10  Pa.  St.  215, 219 ;  Sawyer  v.  Cutting,  23  Vt. 
4Sfi,  491. 

20    Alexander  v.  Miller,  10  Pa.  St.  215,  220. 

27    Davis  v.  Merrill,  47  N.  H.  208,  211. 

2S    Stewart  M.  &  D.  ??  177,  180. 

29  Roland  v.  Logan,  18  Ala.  307,  310  ;  Lawrence  v.  Spear,  17  Cal.  421, 
424;  Ahern  v.  Easterbv,  42  Conn.  .546,  .559;  Benjamin,  15  Conn.  .347, 
354;  m  Am.  Dec.  .384;  Casteel,  8  Blackf.  240,  242;  44  .\ni.  Dec.  763: 
Rawson  v.  Spangler,  62  Iowa,  59,  fil  ;  18  C;ent.  L.  J.  29,  .30;  Cunnina;- 
ham  V.  Reardon,  9f  Mass.  538;  Rosenthal  v.  Mavhugh,  3;{  Ohio  St. 
155,  161  ;  Alexander  v.  Miller,  16  Pa.  St.  21.5,  219,  220 :  .Sawver  v.  Cut- 
ting, 23  Vt.  486  491  ;  Norcross  v.  Rodgers,  30  Vt.  588,  .589.  But  see 
Edgerly  v.  Whalen,  106  Mass.  307,  308.    Sae  Stewart  M.  &  D.  U 174, 177. 

^  91.  Illustrations  of  wife's  want  of  authority.  —  Unless 
a  husband  has  in  some  way  appointed  his  wife  his 
agent  .she  has  no  authority  to  act  for  him^  except  to 
pledge  his  credit  for  necessaries.'^  Thus,  no  conti-act 
made  by  her  during  coverture  binds  him;*  he  is  not 
liable  for  rent  of  her  separate  property ;  ^  payment  to 
her  of  money  due  him  is  no  discharge,^  nor  is  her 
receipt; 6  .she  cannot  indorse  a  note  payable  to  her 
which  belongs  to  him ;  ^  or  draw  his  money  from 
bank ;  ^  she  cannot  sell  his  goods ;  ^  he  is  not  liable  for 
money  deposited  with  her;'*  her  recognition  of  his 
debt  does  not  take  it  out  of  the  Statute  of  Limitations ; " 
she  cannot  manage  his  law  suit  ;'^  one  Avho  receives  his 
property  from  her  is  liable  to  him  in  trover.^*  To  ren- 
der him  liable  in  such  cases  her  agency  in  fact  must  be 
proved.'* 

1  Sawyer  v.  Cutting,  23  Vt.  486,  490  ;  ante,  {I  89,  90. 

2  Ant<:,  i'i  81,  89  ;  pos<,  §  5 ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  n8f>- 

3  Whitworth  v.  Hart,  22  Ala.  343 ;  Dunnahoe  ?•.  WiJIiams,  24  Ark. 
261,  2GS  ;  Benjamin,  IS  Conn.  ;547, 354  ;  39  Am.  Deo.  :584  ;  Jaycox  it. Wing, 
66  111.  182 ;  Wilbur,  13  Met.  4(M ;  Leeds  v.  Vail,  15  Pa.  St.  1^5, 188 ;  Mayse 
V  Briggs,  3  Head,  36,  38  ;  ante.  ?  67.  Except  as  to  community:  Cousins 
V.  Kelsey,  33  La.  An.  880,  882.  He  may  sonietireies  adopt  them  if 
executed:  Ham  v.  Boody,  20  N.  H.  411, 413 ;  51  Am.  Dec.  235 ;  Lowry  v. 
Naff,  4  Cold.  370,  374. 

4  Biery  t-.  Ziegler.  93  Pa  St  :<67  ;  39  Am.  Rep.  7.56. 

5  Felch  V.  Beand.-y,  40  Cal.  439.    Compare  White,  3  Miss.  931. 

6  Thrasher  v.  Tuttle,  22  Me.  335,  336. 

7  Stevens  v.  Beals,  10  Cush.  291, 292  ;  57  Am.  Dec.  108.  See  Roland 
V.  Logan,  18  Ala.  307. 


141  AGENCY   OF    WIFE   FO:i   IIUSEAXD.  ^i  92-93 

8  Allen  V.  Williamsburgh,  2  Abb.  N.  C.  342,  »45. 

9  Dunnahoe  v.  Williams.  24  Ark.  264,  26S ;  Lewis  r.  Buttriek,  102 
Mass.  412 ;  Brown  i'.  Hannibal,  33  Mo.  30!i ;  Bain  v.  Doran,  54  Pa.  8t. 
1_4  ;  Alexander  v.  Miller,  IG  Pa.  St.  21.5,  219  ;  ante,  i  90. 

10  Gilbert  v.  Plant,  18  Ind.  308,  311  ;  Andrews  v.  Ormsbee,  11  Mo. 
440. 

11  Morris  V.  Roots,  6.5  Ga.  686,  6H8. 

12  Cobbett  V.  Hudson,  15  Q.  B.  9S8,  989.  See  Hughes  v.  Mulvey,  1 
Sand.  92. 

13  Edgerlv  v.  Whalan,  106  Mass.  307,  308  ;  Green  v.  Sperrv,  16  Vt. 
390,  392  ;  42  Am.  Rep.  519. 

14  I'osl,  I  97. 

2  92.  Scope  of  wife's  authority  as  agent  for  husband. — 
A  wife  may  be  he'-  husband's  special  or  general  agent ;  ^ 
.slie  may  have  authority  to  do  a  particular  act,  or  to  act 
in  a  certain  character.'^  Her  autliority  in  its  scope 
includes  all  powers  proper  and  usual  to  effectuate  the 
purposes  of  the  agency.^  Thus,  if  her  husband  puts  her 
in  charge  of  his  farm  she  may  cultivate  it,  but  not  sell 
it ;  *  if  he  gives  her  control  of  his  business  slie  may  make 
all  usual  contracts  therein,  but  not  accominodation 
notes; 5  if  he  lives  with  her  and  she  has  charge  of  the 
domestic  part  of  liis  establislinient,  she  may  employ  ser- 
vants and  order  what  is  needed,  but  she  may  not  buy 
extravagant  and  extraordinary  things.^  If  she  exceeds 
her  authority  he  is  not  bound, ^  though  she  may  be.^ 

1  Sawyer  v.  Cutting.  23  Vt.  486,  490. 

2  Ewell's  Evans  Agency,  102, 1.35. 

3  Benjamin,  15  Conn.  347,  .3.% ;  39  Am.  Iiec.384  ;  post,  ??  93,  94  ;  ante, 
?90. 

4  Butts  V.  Newton,  29  "Wis.  632,639  ;  svpra,  n.  3. 

5  Holme."?  v.  Grover,  33  N.  J.  L.  463,  467  ;  31  N.  J.  L.  182.  184  •  post, 
§93. 

6  Savage  v.  Davis,  18  Wis.  60S,  613;  Freestone  v.  Butcher,  9  Car.  A 
P.  643 ;  iMSt,  I  94. 

7  Goodrich  v.  Tracy,  43  Wis.  314,  320. 

8  Cody  V.  Phelps,  47  Mich.  431.    See  Miller  v.  Watt,  70  Ga.  385,  387. 

§  93  Wife  as  husband's  agent  in  business.  —  Veiy  slight 
acts  on  the  part  of  the  husband  will  constitute  his  wife 
his  agent  in  his  business  ;i  there  seems  to  be  a  pre- 


I  92  AGENCY   OF   WIFE    FOR   HUSBAND,  142 

sumption,  rebuttable  of  course, ^  if  the  business  is  car- 
ried on  in  a  house  where  tliey  live  together  that  she  is 
his  agent  ;*  and  a  jury  is  justified  in  finding  her  agency 
for  Iiini  from  the  fact  that  she  was  seen  twice  in  liis 
store  in  charge  of  it,*  or  tliat  he  Avas  absent  and  there 
was  no  one  else  to  attend  to  it.^  If  she  is  in  business 
not  by  authority  of  statute,  but  siniplj^  bj'-  his  consent,^ 
it  is  his  business,''  and  lie  is  liable  for  her  acts,^  even  if 
she  carries  it  on  as  a  partner,*  or  in  her  name  ;  ^^  but  he 
is  not  liable  if  she  trades  under  a  special  statute,"  for 
then  the  business  is  hers;''  if  it  is  his  business  he  is 
liable,  not  if  it  is  hers,'*  If  she  is  his  agent  thus  by 
implication  she  has  only  the  usual  and  ordinary  pow- 
ers that  persons  in  such  a  jjosition  exercise  ; "  she  may 
bu3^  goods  suitable  for  the  trade  ;  '^  she  may  give  notes 
if  such  is  the  course  of  the  business,'^  but  not  other- 
wise," and  not  accommodation  notes;'*  nor  if  he  has 
given  a  note  can  she  take  it  back  and  give  another  in 
its  place,'*  In  keeping  his  tavern  she  cannot  make  a 
long  and  special  contract  for  horse  feed  at  reduced 
i-ates.-^  If  she  has  authority  only  to  give  his  note,  she 
must  make  it  in  his  name  or  as  his  agent, ■^'  A  note  in 
her  own  name  will  not  bind  him.^^  If  she  exceeds  her 
authority,"^  ho  may  of  course  ratify  her  acts;'^*  as  by 
suing  on  a  note  given  her  as  part  of  a  transaction  she 
had  no  authority  to  conduct,®  So  he  is  bound  by  false 
representations  made  by  her  as  agent  in  the  course  of 
his  business. 26  But  if  all  the  credit  is  given  the  wife, 
the  husband  is  not  bound. 2" 

1  See  also  ante,  >d  89,  'M ;  ivjst.  J  97. 

2  See  Debonham  v.  Mellon,  Law  R.  6  App.  C.  24,  32  ;  post,  |  94. 

3  McKinlej-  v.  McGregor,  3  Wharf,.  369. 

4  Plummer  v.  Sills,  3  Nev.  &  M.  422. 

5  Rotch  V.  Miles.  2  Conn.  «:«,  045  ;  ante,  i  90. 

6  Bost,  Marrikd  Womex  TK.\nKRS,  ch.  xxvil. 

7  Ante.,lie5,S7. 


143  AGENCY   OF   AVIFE    FOB   HUSBAND.  g  94 

8  Godfrey  v.  Brooks,  5  Har.   (De'  )  396 ;  Oxnard  v.  Swanton,  S9 
Me.  125. 

9  Everit  v.  Watts,  10  Paige,  82. 

10  Petty  V.  Anderson,  3  Bing.  170. 

11  Colby  V.  Lamson,  39  Me.  117  ;  Gillies  v.  Lent,  2  Abb.  Pr.  N.  S.  255. 

12  I'ost,  eh.  xxvii. 

13  Oxnard  v.  Swanton,  39  Me.  125. 

14  Benjamin,  15  Conn.  ai7,  a56  ;  39  Am.  Dec.  3S4  ;  ante,  ?  92. 

15  Phillipson  v.  Hayter,  Law  R.  6  Com.  P.  38,  41. 

16  Holmes  ii.  Grover,  33  N.  J.  L.  463,  466  ;  31  N.  J.  L.  182,  184. 

17  Reakert  v.  Sanford,  5  Watts  &  S.  1&4,  168. 

18  Holmes  v.  Grover,  33  N.  J.  L.  463,  467  ;  31  N.  J.  L.  182, 184. 

19  Shaw  V.  Emery,  .38  Me.  484. 

20  Webster  v.  McGinnis,  5  Binn.  235,  236. 

21  Galusha  v.  Hitchcock,  29  Barb.  193, 194. 

22  Minard  v.  Mead,  7  Wend.  68,  69. 

23  Ante,  i  92. 

24  Ante,  \  89. 

25  George  v.  Cutting,  46  N.  H.  130. 

26  Taylor  v.  Green,  8  Car.  &  P.  316,  319. 

27  Ante,  i  89,  n.  38. 

2  94.  "Wife  as  hu&band's  agent  in  hQasehold. — The  hus- 
band is  head  of  hi.s  family,'  and  in  regulating  his  house- 
hold may  or  may  not  put  his  wife  in  charge  of  certain 
department.?  thereof,  and  make  her  his  general  agent  in 
all  matters  appertaining  to  their  domestic  life,*  whether 
he  has  or  has  not  made  her  his  agent  is  always,  except 
when  she  relies  on  her  agency  in  law  for  support,^  a 
mere  question  of  fact  to  be  determined  from  all  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  case;*  whether  a  particular  act  was 
within  the  scope  of  her  agency  is  a  mixed  question  of 
law  and  fact.^ 

1.  Appointment.  (1)  If  husband  and  wife  are  perma- 
nently separated,  and  the  wife  has  an  establishment, 
even  if  it  has  been  given  her  by  him,  it  is  hers,  and 
there  is  no  presumption  that  she  may  keep  it  up  at  his 
expense.*  (2)  If  they  are  only  temporarily  separated 
through  his  absence,  and  she  is  apparently  in  charge 
of  his  establishment,  there  is  a  very  strong  presumption 


\  94  AGENCY   OF   WIFE    FOR   HUSBAND.  144 

tliat  she  is  his  general  a^T^ent  in  the  nianagemont  of  i'.' 
(3)  If  tiioy  are  living  together,  but  are  boarding  or  liave 
no  establisliment,  the  fact  of  their  cohabitation  raises  no 
presumption  whatever  of  anj^  agency  of  hers  for  liim.^ 
(i)  If  thej""  are  living  together,  and  are  keeping  liouse, 
there  i-s  a  presumption  that  she  has  charge  of  the 
domestic  part  tliereof  .^  The  presuinptions  of  her  agency 
m  cases  (2)  and  (4)  are  rebuttable,'"  and  the  husljand 
may  relieve  hinjself  of  liability  by  showing  that  his 
domestic  arrangements  excluded  any  such  agency  on 
her  part,"  or  tliat  he  prohibited  her  from  acting  on  lii-; 
account ;  ''^  and  it  nailcer^  no  difference  wliether  the  tliird 
par^j'^  was  informed  of  tliis  or  not. '^  But  if  it  appears 
that  he  in  some  way  allowed  her  to  seem  to'have  charge 
of  his  house  or  recognized  her  acts  as  his  agent 
tlierein,'^  the  mere  fact  that  he  privately  forbade  her  to 
act  for  him  will  not  relieve  him  of  liability.''  And 
when  he  has  once  recognized  her  agency,  though 
lie  may  revoke  it  at  any  time,'*  such  revocation  will 
have  no  effect  as  to  persons  with  whom  he  has  allowed 
her  to  deal  as  his  agent  unless  they  are  specially  noti- 
fied thereof."  In  fine,  her  agency  is  in  kind,  though 
perhaps  not  so  limited  in  scope,^^  the  same  as  that  of  a 
steward  or  servant  placed  in  charge  of  his  house  ;'*  and 
therefore  it  makes  no  difference  whether  she  is  his 
legal  wife  or  not.'^"  But  if  all  the  credit  is  given  to  her 
lie  is  .not  liable.^' 

2.  Scope  of  authoritif.  When  the  wife  is  her  hus- 
band's agent  in  managing  the  household,  her  authority 
covei's  all  such  matters  as  wives  in  such  a  position 
usually  attend  to,""  and  includes  the  right  to  do  what- 
ever is  necessary,  proper,  or  usual  to  effectuate  the  pur- 
poses of  her  agency. ^^  Thus,  she  may  deal  on  his  credit 
with  butcher,  baker,  etc.^^  She  may  give  reasonable 
charity  J  ''^  she  may  extend  usual  hospitality  ^^6  j^^g  may 


145  AGENCY   OF   WIFE    FOR   HUSBAND.  §  94 

employ  necessary  servants  ;  ^^  and  may  in  fact  procure 
on  his  credit  all  such  things  as  belong  to  the  class 
"necessaries," '^8  whether  really  needed  or  not.^  But 
she  cannot  thus  procure  extraordinary  and  extravagant 
things,^"  although  if  she  thus  exceeds  her  authority  he 
may  ratify  her  acts,^'  and  is  therefoi-e  liable  for  what- 
ever things  he  permits  her  to  receive  into  his  house,^^ 
unless  he  supposes  she  has  paid  for  them.^^  rpj^g  extent 
of  her  authority  naturally  depends  largely  on  their 
station  in  life.'* 

1  Ante,  2  6Q. 

2  See  1  Bish.  M.  &  B.  ?  355. 

3  Stewart  M.  &  D.  J  180  ;  «?i«e,?§  64,  81 ;  post,  ??  95,  96. 

4  Reicl  V.  Teakle,  13  Com.  B.  627  ;  Rvan  v.  Sams,  12  Q.  R.  460  ;  De- 
beiiham  v.  MellOTi,  L.  R.  6  App.  (;.  24,  32;  Clark  v.  Cox,  32  Mich.  209, 
213  ;  Keller  v.  Phillips,  3;i  N.  Y.  351  ;  ante,  J  89,  n.  6. 

5  See  Reneaux  v.  Teakle,  8  Ex.  680  ;  Lane  v.  Iremonger,  13  Mees. 
&  W.  368;  Parke  v.  Kleeber,  37  Pa.  St.  251;  discussion  in  2  Smith, 
L.  C.  404,  et  seq. 

6  See  Debenham  v.  Mellon,  Law  R.  6  App.  C.  24  ;  Law  R.  5  Q.  B. 
D.  395 ;  Manby  v.  Scott,  1  Lev.  4  ;  2  Smith,  L.  C.  402, 

7  Rotch  V.  Miles,  2  Conn.  638,  645  ;  ante,  ?  90. 

8  Debenham  \).  Mellon,  Law  R.  6  App.  C.  24,  .33  ;  Law  R.  5  Q.  B.  D. 
395. 

9  Debenham  v.  Mellon,  Law  R.  5  Q.  B.  D.  .394,  402  ;  Clifford  v. 
Laton,  3  Car.  &  P.  15,  16  ;  Reneaux  v.  Teakle,  8  Ex.  680:  Phillijison  )•. 
Havter,  Law  R.  6  Com.  P.  38,  41,  42  ;  Ruddock  v.  Marsh,  1  Hurl.  &  N. 
601  ;  Emnictt?).  Norton,  8  Car.  &  P.  .506,  510;  Freestone?-  Butcher,  9 
Car.  &  P.  643  ;  Montague  v.  Benedict,  3  Barn.  &  C.  631,  6.35  ;  Hughes  r. 
Chadwick,  6  Ala.  651 ;  Benjamin,  15  Conn.  .347,  3.57  ;  .39  Am.  Dec.  381  ; 
Shelton  V.  Hoadley,  15  Conn.  535;  Johnston  v.  Pike,  14  La.  An.  731  ; 
Furlong  v.  Ilysom,  35  Me.  332  ;  Eames?>.  Sweetser,  101  Mass.  78  ;  Har- 
shaw  V.  Merrvman,  18  Mo.  106  ;  Pickering,  6  N.  H.  120,  124  ;  Tebhetts 
V.  Hapgood,  .34  N.  H.  420  ;  Sterling  v.  Potts,  5  N.  J.  L.  773  ;  Keller  v. 
Phillips,  39  N.  Y.  351  ;  Cromwell  v.  Benjamin,  41  Barb.  5.58  ;  Meade 
)'.  Page,  39  Vt.  306,  308  ;  Sawyer  v.  Cutting,  23  Vt.  4S6,  490  ;  Bugbee  v. 
Blood, 48  Vt.  499, 501  ;  Savage  v.  Davis,  18  Wis.  608, 61.3. 

10  Debenham  v.  Mellon,  Law  R.  6  App.  C.  24,  32,  .37  ;  50  Law  J.  Q. 
B.  D.  1.55;  Law  R.  5  Q.  B.  D.  .394,  402  ;  49  Law  J.  Q.  B.  D.  497  ;  Clark  v. 
Cox,  .32  Mich.  204,  213  ;  supra,  n.  9  ;  post,  I 

11  See  Barr  v.  Armstrong,  .56  Mo.  577,  581.  Giving  her  an  allowance 
is  not  alone  sufficient:  Ruddock  i'.  Marsh,  1  Hurl.  &  N.  001,  604  ;  Holt 
V.  Bfien,  4  Barn.  &  Adol.  3,52. 

12  Morgan  ti.  Chetwynd,  4  Fost.  &  F.  451,  458,  459. 

13  Debenham  )'.  Mellon,  Law  R.  6  App.  C.  24,  32  ;  Law  R.  f  Q.  B.  D. 
394,  402  ;  Joily  v.  Rees,  15  Com.  B.  N.  S.  628. 

14  See  ante,  1}  89,  90  ;  post,  ?  97. 

15  Debenham  r.  Mellon,  Law  R.  6  App.  C.  24,  33. 

XL  &  Vv'.  -13. 


g  95  AGENCY   OF   WIFE   FOR   HUSBAND.  146 

Ifi  Wallis  1'.  Be(l(1ick,23  Week.  R.  1  ;  Debenham  v.  Mellon,  Law  R. 
5  Q.  B.  D.  3!W,  •403  ;  Daubney  v.  Hughes,  60  N.  Y.  186,  191  ;  post,  ^  'JS. 

17    Caiiy  I'.  Pattoii,  2  Ashni.  140. 

IS    Benjamin,  1.')  Conn.  3-17,  357  ;  30  Am.  Dec.  38-1  ;  infra,  n.  22,  23. 

1!)  Debenham  v.  Mellon,  Law  R.  5  Q.  B.  D.  394,  390  ;  Law  R.  6  App. 
C.  24,  33. 

20  Blades  v.  Free,  9  Barn.  &  C.  167,  171  ;  Robinson  v.  Nahon,  1 
Camp.  -4") ;  Watson  v.  Threlkeld,  2  Esp.  637. 

21  Ante,  J  89,  n.  38. 

22  Rurldook  V.  Marsh,  1  Hurl.  <fe  N.  601,  601 ;  Emmett  v.  Norton,  8 
Car.  &  P.  506,  .510;  Phillipson  v.  Havter,  Law  R.  6  Com.  P.  :«,  42; 
Montague  v.  Benedict,  3  Barn.  <fe  C.  6!I,  635  ;  Pickerins,  6  N.  H.  120; 
1 24  ;  Bughee  v.  Blood,  48  Vt.  439,  Wl ;  Meader  v.  Page,  3!»  V{.  iVm,  308  ; 
Suwver  v.  Cutting,  23  Vt.  486,  490  ;  Savage  v.  Davis,  IS  Wis.  608,  6i:J ; 
ante,  U  90.  92. 

23  Benjamin,  15  Conn.  :U7,  356,  :{.58  ;  39  Am.  Dec.  384  ;  ante,  i  92. 

24  Debenham  v.  Mellon,  Law  R.  6  App.  C.  24, 36. 

25  Spencer  v.  Stores,  :i8  Vt.  156,  158. 
25    Humes  v.  Taber,  1  R.  I.  464,  473. 

27  White  V.  Cuvler,  6  Term,  176  ;  Condon  v.  Callahan,  9  Abb.  N.  C. 
407,  411.    Compare  Rotch  v.  Miles,  2  Conn,  638,  646. 

28  Bost,  i  95  ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ?  180. 

2;)  Ruddock  v.  Marsh,  1  Hurl.  <fe  N.  601,  604  ;  post,  ?  95. 

30  Freestone  v.  Butcher,  9  Car.  &  P.  643. 

31  Mickelberry  v.  Harvey,  58  Ind.  523,  525  ;  ante,  5  89  ;  post,  ?  95. 

32  Oilman  v.  Andrus,  28  Vt.  241,  242.  See  Waithman  v.  Wakefield,  1 
Camp.  120,  121  ;  Atkins  v.  Curwood,  7  Car.  &  P.  756,  760. 

33  ^Morgan  v.  Chetwynd,  4  Fost.  <fe  F.  451,  459. 

34  Keller  v.  Phillips,  39  N.  Y.  351 ;  post,  ?  95. 

§  95.  Wife  as  husband's  agent  for  necessaries. — Such 
food,  lodging,  clothing,  attendance,  etc.,  as  iisiially 
make  a  part  of  a  wife's  life  in  the  station  in  Avhich  her 
husband  allows  her  to  move — such  things  as  enable 
her  to  live  decently  and  in  a  manner  fitting  her  condi- 
tion and  estate — are  necessaries.^  She  may  be  amply 
supplied  with  such  things,  or  may  be  in  actual  need  of 
them  ;  they  may  be  necessaries  and  yet  not  necessary.^ 
A  husband  maybe  liable  for  necessaries  supplied  his 
wife  on  his  credit*  by  virtue  of  her  agency  for  him  in 
law  or  in  fact.*  She  is  his  agent  in  law  when  she  is 
without  fault  and  without  means,  and  he  refuses  or 
neglects  to  supply  her  with  them  ;  they  must  be  neces- 


147  AGENCY   OF    WIFE    FOB   HUSBAND.  §  96 

saries,  she  must  actually  need  them,  and  he  must  be 
bound  to  support  her.»  She  is  his  agent,  in  fact,  when 
he  has  so  appointed  her,^  and  it  would  seem  that  it 
would  make  no  difference  whether  slie  were  already 
suiiplicd  with  articles  of  the  kind  or  not,  unless  the 
party  supplying  her  knew  it,  or  supplied  both  her 
needs  and  the  excess  himself;^  for  she  would  be  act- 
ing api:)arontly  witliin  tlie  scope  of  her  authority. ^ 
whicli  authority  depends  not  on  her  needs  but  on  her 
husband's  act  in  holding  her  out  as  his  agent.^  Still 
tlio  fact  tliat  necessaries  were  sufficiently  supplied  by 
tlie  liusband  would  bo  relevant  to  prove  that  she  was 
not  his  agent  in  fact  to  buy  them.'"  A  husband  usuallj'' 
makes  his  wife  his  agent  in  fact  to  purchase  necessaries 
by  putting  lier  at  the  liead  of  tlie  domestic  department 
of  liis  liouse,  or  in  charge  of  his  children,  or  by  paying 
lier  bills,  or  accepting  the  benefit  of  her  orders,  or 
allowing  her  to  use  goods  bouglit,  knowing  tliat  he  is 
expected  to  pay  for  them;  but  all  such  circiimstances 
are  merely  facts  by  wliich  lier  agency  may  be  proved. '^ 

1  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ??  ISO,  380  ;  2  Smith,  I..  C.  40i,  etseq.  :  Morgan  v. 
Chetwynd,  4  Fost.  <fe  F.  451,  45J  ;  Rayiies  v.  Bennett,  114  Mass.  424  ; 
prist,  i  96. 

2  Debenham  v.  Mellon,  Law  R.  5  a.  B.  D.  394,  397. 

3  Ante,  ?  89,  n.  3«i. 

4  Ante,  U  82,  89-94. 

5  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ?  180  ;  ayite,  ?  64. 

6  Ante,  U  83,  90. 

7  See  Holt  v.  Brian,  4  Barn.  &  Add.  252  ;  Bentley  v.  Griffin,  5 
Taunt.  :io6. 

8  Ante,  \\  92,  94. 

9  Ante,  ??  8;)-91,  94. 

10  See  Ruddock  v.  Marsh,  I  Hurl.  &  N.  601,  G04  ;  pnst,  ?  97. 

11  Ante,  U  89,  90,  94  ;  fully,  post,  i  97. 

'<j>  96.  Authorities  as  to  necessaries.  —  The  decisions  as 
to  a  liusband's  liability  for  necessaries  are  very  numer- 
ous. Many  o'  thein  are  collated  in  Stewart  on  Mar- 
riage and   Divorce,!  and  in  Smith's   Leading   Cases.^ 


2  96  AGENCY   OF   WIFK   FOR   HUSBAND,  148 

But  for  farther  convenience  references  are  here  given 
to  leading  decisions  in  England,^  Alabama/  Arkansas, » 
California,^  Connecticut,'  Delaware,^  Georgia,^  Illinois, lo 
Indiana,*!  Iowa,'-  Kansas,'''  Kentucky,'*  Louisiana,!^ 
Maine, 1^  Maryland,'^  Massachusetts,'*  Michigan,*^  Miss- 
issippi,^'' Missouri, '■^1  Nebraska,^'^  New  Hampshire,'^ 
New  Jersey, ^^  Now  York,-'^  North  Carol! na,"^^  Ohio,-' 
Pennsj'lvania,-®  Rhode  Island,-'^  South  Carolina,""  Ten- 
nessee,^' Texas,^'^  Verinont,^^  and  Wisconsin.^' 

1  Stewart  M.  &  D.  H  180,  38n,  J.jo. 

2  2  Smith,  L.  C.  pp.  4(M,  et  seq. 

3  Debenham  )'.  Mellon,  Law  R.  2  App.  C.  2-1 ;  50  Law  .T.  Q.  B.  D. 
'  155;  S.  C.  Law  K.  5  (i.  B.  T).  :«M ;  4;)  Law  J.  Q.  B.  D.  4117:  Kastlaiid  v. 

Burchell,  Law  K.  S  Q.  B.  D.  431 ;  47  Law  J.  Q.  B.  D.  oOO,  auU  cases 
•cited  in  these  cases. 

4  Pearson  v.  Darri'igto;i,  '\1  Ala.  2':7 ;  C'othran  v.  Lee,  24  Ala.  ."(80  ; 
Zeisrler  v.  Daviil.  Z'>  Ala.  12:J ;  Hughes  v.  Chadwick,  6  Ala.  651 ;  Harris 
V.  Davis,  1  Ala.  2.jft. 

5  Dunnahoe  ?•.  'Willianis,  24  Ark.  264. 

6  Heney  v.  Sargent,  54  Cal.  .306. 

7  Kenyon  v.  Farris,  47  Conn.  .510;  ."JS  Am.  Eep.  8(5;  St.  John  v. 
Bronson.  40  (!onn.  75  ;  Sliflton  v.  Hoadlev,  15  Conn.  5:55  ;  Beniamin,  15 
Conn.  a47  ;  39  Am.  Dec.  iA\  ;  Ketch  v.  Miles,  2  Conn.  KiS. 

8  Bifldle  v.  Frazier,  .3  Houst.  2.58  ;  Bennett  v.  Chamberlain,  5  Har. 
CDel.^ ;{.)!  ;  Contine  t\  Pliillipps,  5  Ilur.  i  Del.")  428  ;  Kemp  v.  Downliaur, 
5  Har.  (.Del.)  47  ;  Fredcl  r.  Eves,  4  Har.  (Del.)  3S5. 

9  Mo-ris  )'.  Root,  ft5  Ga.  6SG  ;  Suiter  v.  Hueston,  50  Ga.  242 ;  Mit- 
chell i>.  Treanor,  U  Ga.  ;}24  ;  .56  Am.  Dec.  421. 

10  Wilson  )•.  Bishop,  10  111.  App.  5.S8 ;  Compton  7^.  Bates,  10  III. 
App.  78  ;  Compton  c  Coopers.  10  111.  App.  86  ;  Scbunckle  r.  Bierman, 
89  III.  4.54  ;  Dow  r.  Kvstcr.  7.1  111.  2.-vl ;  Gotts  v.  Clark,  7S  111.  Zlw  ;  M-- 
Millen  v.  Lee.  7S  III.  44:!;  Trotter,  77  111.  510;  Bevier  r.  Gallowav,  71 
III.  517  :  Ross,  69  HI.  5G:)  ;  Rea  v.  Durkee,  25  111.  SOS ;  Cornelia  v.  Ellis, 
11  lU.  584. 

11  Miekleberrv  i-.  Harvey,  .58  Ind.  .52.3  ;  Meiners  v.  Munson,  53  Ind. 
138;  Board?'.  Schmoke,  51  Ind.  416;  Oinson  »-.  Heritage,  45  Ind.  73  ;  1.5. 
Am.  Rep.  2.58  ;  Jenkins  ?'.  Flinn,  37  Ind.  349  ;  Day  v.  Wormsley,  3.5 
Ind.  145  ;  Litson  v.  Brown,  26  Ind.  489. 

12  County  V. McDonald, 46 Iowa,  170;  Porter?'. Briggs,. 38 Iowa,  Ifif! ; 
18  Am.  Rep.  27  ;  De.scelles  r.  Kadmus,  8  Iowa,  51  ;  Reuneckea  v. 
Scott,  4  Greene,  185 ;  Johnson  v.  Williams,  3  Greene,  97. 

13  Harttmann  v.  Tegart,  12  Kan.  177. 

14  Bonney  r.  Reardin,  6  Bush,  34  ;  Rennick  v.  Ficklin,  5  Mon.  B. 
166  ;  Henderson  i'.  Stringer,  2  Dana,  291. 

15  Johnston  v.  Pike,  14  La.  An.  731 ;  Bowen  v.  Frjndell,  17  La.  An. 
299. 

16  Thorp  V.  Shapleigh,  67  Me.  235 ;  Burkett  v.  Trowbridge,  61  Me. 
251 ;  Furlong  v.  Hysom,  35  Me.  332. 


149  AGENCY   OP   WIFE    FOR   HUSBAND.  g  97 

17  Anderson  v.  Smith,  3S  Mtl.  465;  Weisker  v.  Lowenthal,  31  Md. 
413;  Soliindel,  12  Md.  120;  Brown,  5  Gill,  249;  Addison  v.  Bowie,  2 
Bland,  619,  626. 

IS  Raynos  v.  Bennett,  114  Mass.  424  ;  Mills  v.  Shirley,  110  Mass.  1.59 ; 
Almv  V.  Wilcox,  110  Mass.  442;  Eames  v.  Sweetser,  101  Mass.  TS ; 
McCiellen  v.  Adams,  19  Pick.  333 ;  Wood  v.  O'Kelley,  8  Cush.  406. 

19  Clark  v.  Cox,  .32  Mich.  204. 

20  Cook  V.  Lyon,  .54  Miss.  368  ;  Garland,  .50  Miss.  691. 

21  Barr  v.  Armstrong,  .56  Mo.  .577  ;  Harshaw  v.  Merryman,  18  Mo. 
106;  Reost>  1'.  Chilton,  26  Mo.  .598  ;  Singleton  v.  Mason,  3  Mo.  465; 
Bray  ik  Beard,  5  Mo.  App.  584. 

22  Spaun  v.  Mercer,  8  Neb.  3.57. 

23  Morris  v.  Palmer,  .39  X.  K.  123  ;  Tehhets  v.  Hapgood.  34  N.  H. 
420;  Walker  ?j.  Leighton,  31  N.  H.  Ill  ;  Pickering,  6  N.  H.  120. 

24  Wilson  V.  Herbert,  41  N.  J.  L.  4.54  ;  .32  Am.  Rep.  243 ;  .Snover  v. 
Blair,  25  N.  J.  L.  94  ;  Sterling,  5  N.  J.  L.  773. 

25  Catlin  v.  Martin,  6')  N.  Y.  393  ;  Keller  v.  Phillips,  39  X.  Y.  .351  ; 
People  V.  Pettit,  74  N.  Y.  320;  Cromwell  t.  Benjamin,  41  Barb.  5.58; 
Johnston  v.  Allen,  39  How.  Pr.  506;  Allen,  9  Dalv,  198;  Webber  v. 
Sparnliake,  2  Redf.  2.58  ;  Thercott  v.  Bagioli,  9  Bosw.  578  ;  Church  v. 
Landers,  10  Wend.  79. 

2R    Pool  V.  Everton,  5  Jones,  241. 

27  Hare  v.  Gibson,  32  Ohio  St.  33  ;  30  Am.  Rep.  .565. 

28  Rigonev  v.  Neiman,  73  Pa.  St.  3:;0  ;  Hultz  v.  Gihbs,  66  Pa.  St.  .360 ; 
Breinig  v.  Meitzler,  23  Pa.  St.  156  ;  Alexander  v.  Miliei-,  16  Pa.  St.  215  ; 
C\innin<jfhani  v.  Irwin,  7  Serg.  &  R.  247  ;  10  Am.  Dec.  4=;8  ;  Rpakert  ?'. 
S  inford,  5  Watts  &  S.  161 ;  Markley  v.  Wartman,  9  Phila.  236;  Mc- 
Kinley  v.  McGregor,  3  Whart.  369. 

29  Graham  ?>.  Coupe,  9  R.  I.  478  ;  Gill  v.  Read,  5  R.  I.  .343. 

30  Clement  v.  Mattisoii,  3  Rich.  93;  Moses  v.  Fogartie,  2  Hill,  335  ; 
AVilliams  v.  Prince,  3  Strob.  410. 

31  Brown  v.  Patton,  3  Humph.  13.5. 

32  Black  v.  Bryan,  18  Tex.  4.53  ;  Morgan  v.  Hughes,  20  Tex.  141  ; 
Payne  v.  Bentley,  21  Tex.  452. 

33  Thorne  v.  Kathan,  51  Vt.  520  ;  Roberts  v.  Kellev,  51  Vt.  97  ; 
Bngbee  v.  Blood,  48  Vt.  499  ;  Woodward  r.  Barnes,  43  Vt.  3:;n  ;  46  Vt. 
3 '.2  ;  14  Am.  Rep.  626  ;  Spencer  r.  Storrs,  38  Vt.  156  ;  Carter  v.  Howard, 
39  Vt.  106  ;  Meader  v.  Page,  39  Vt.  .306  ;  S  iwver  v.  Cutting,  2  !  Vt.  486  ; 
Felker  v.  Emerson,  16  Vt.  653  ;  Dav  v.  Burnham,  36  Vt.  37  ;  Gilman  v. 
Andrus,  28  Vt.  241. 

34  Brown  v.  Warden,  .39  Wis.  432 ;  Butts  i\  Newton,  29  Wis.  632  ; 
Sturtevant  v.  Starin,  18  Wis.  608  ;  Birdsall  v.  Dunn,  16  Wis.  235. 

?  97.  Proof  of  wife's  agency  for  husband.  —  Except  in 
one  case,i  agency  of  wife  for  hn.sband  is  a  mere  ques- 
tion of  fact,^  provable  as  any  other  fact^  by  any  evi- 
dence showing  her  appointment  in  one  of  the  several 
modes.*  Tlie  burden  of  proof  is  on  the  party  alleging 
the  agencv.=    The  wife  cannot  testifv  as  to  the  fact  of 


§  97  AGEXCT   OF   WIFE   FOR   HUSBA>'D.  150 

her  agency,^  though  that  fact  being  proved  her  declara- 
tions as  his  agent  bind  him."  The  fact  that  a  ^voman  is 
bearing  his  name  is  no  evidence  that  she  is  his  agent,^ 
but  a  Avoman's  agency  for  him  being  sliown  the  fact 
that  she  is  hLs  wife  or  is  treated  as  such,^  is  relevant  to 
determine  the  scope  of  her  agency.^"  More  particu- 
larly,— 

1.  Business  agency.^^  If  husband  and  wife  live  to- 
gether and  she  transact  business,  tlie  presumption  is 
that  she  is  his  agent.^^  Evidence  that  she  was  seen  sev- 
eral times  in  his  counting-room  apparently  transacting 
his  business  justifies  a  finding  that  slie  was  his  business 
agent ;  ^^  so  does  proof  of  the  fact  that  he  went  away 
and  left  her  in  charge  of  his  business.** 

2.  Domestic  agency.^'^  Proof  that  a  man  and  woman 
are  coliabiting  as  husband  and  wife  raises  a  presump- 
tion'* wliich  may  be  rebutted'^  that  she  is  his  mun- 
ager,'8  his  domestic  agent  to  buy  necessaries,  etc.,**  but 
further  facts  shoA\ing  that  he  authorized,  assented  to, 
or  ratified  her  acts,  must  be  proved  to  establish  her 
agency  if  they  are  living  apart,^  or  the  ai'ticles  are  not 
necessaries,^*  or  the  presumption  from  cohabitation  is 
rebutted. 22  So  tliat  if  the  parties  are  living  apart  the 
proof  of  their  marriage  raises  no  jiresumption  of  agency, 
but  the  partj'  alleging  it  must  establish  its  existence  in 
law-"  or  in  fact,^'  The  usual  evidence  in  these  cases  is 
of  previous  payment  by  the  husljand  of  the  wife's 
bills,^  his  acceptance  of  the  benefit  of  her  acts,'^^  or  his 
permitting  lier  to  keep  goods  he  knows  he  is  expected 
to  pay  for.'^  The  fact  that  he  paid  for  articles  ordered 
for  domestic  use  is  evidence  of  her  authority  to  have 
him  cliarged  for  the  education  of  their  child.-*  The 
mere  entry  of  charges  as  against  her  is  not  conclusive 
that  credit  was  not  given  to  him.^ 

1    Stewart  M.  &  D.  JISO ;  ante,  H  89,  90. 


151  AGENCY   OF   WIFE   FOR   HUSBAXD.  §  98 

2  Debenhain  r.  Mellon,  Law  E.  6  App.  C.  24,  32 ;  Law  R.  5  Q.  B.  D. 
3&4,  400,  402  ;  atite,  i  89,  n.  G. 

3  Brander  v.  Cobb,  2  La.  An.  Sns  ;  McKee  >■.  Kent,  24  Miss.  131; 
Hughi'S  V.  Mulbev,  1  SaTirt.  if2  ;  Cox  ?-.  Hofifman.  4  I)ev.  &  B.  180; 
Abbott  f.  Maokini'-v,  2  Miles,  220  ;  McKinley  r.  McGregor,  3  Whart. 
363;  Gray  v.  Otis.  11  Vt.  61i. 

4  Ante,  ??  83,  90. 

5  Benjamin,  15  Conn.  347,  3.S4 ;  33  Am.  Dec.  3*4  ;  Savage  v.  Davis, 
IS  Wis.  OOi,  614. 

6  Barr  v.  Armstrong,  56  Mo.  577,  58!);  Butts  v.  Newton,  39  Wis. 
632,  641  ;  ante,  'i  56. 

7  Singleton  v.  Mann,  3  Mo.  326,  329  ;  Pickering,  6  N.  H.  120,  124  ; 
ante,  i  56. 

8  Goneme  t'.  Franklin,  1  Fost.  &  F.  465. 

9  Ante,  i  94. 

10  Benjamin,  15 Conn.  349, 353  ;  39  Am.  Dec.  384  ;  Furman  v.  CMcago, 
62  Iowa,  395,  398,  393  ;  ante,  H  92-95. 

11  Ante,  I  93. 

12  McKinley  v.  McGregor,  3  Whart.  369  ;  ante,  ?  93. 

13  Plummer  v.  snis,  3  Xev.  &  M.  422  ;  ante,  \  93. 

14  Rotch  I'.  MUes,  2  Conn.  633,  645. 

15  Ante,  {  94. 

16  Debenham  v.  Mellon,  Law  R.  5  Q.  B.  D.  .394,  402 ;  Cliflford  v. 
Laton.  3  Car.  &  P.  15,  lu  ;  Reneaux  v.  Teakle,  8  Ex.  680  ;  Tebbits  v. 
Hapgood,  34  X.  H.  420  ;  anU,  J  94. 

17  Debenham  v.  Mellon,  Law  E.  6  App.  C.  24,  32,  37  ;  Jolly  v.  Rees, 
15  Com.  B.  X.  S.  628 ;  ante,  I  94  ;  post,  i  9S. 

18  Debenham  v.  Mellon,  Law  R.  6  App.  C.  24,  .^. 

19  Ante,  U  04,  9o. 

'20  Jenner  )'.  Hill,  1  Fost.  &  F.  203  ;  Johnston  r.  Sumner,  3  Hurl.  & 
X".  261,  266  ;  Mitchell  v.  Treanor,  11  Ga.  324  ;  .5u  Am.  Dec.  421  ;  Reg.  v. 
Durbee,  2.5  III.  .50:! ;  Mott  !•.  Comstock,  8  Wend.  •>44  ;  Pool  r.  Everton, 
5  Jones,  241;  Canv  v.  Patton.  2  Ashm.  140;  Walker  v.  Simpson,  7 
Watts  &  S.  83 ;  42" Am.  Dec.  216  ;  Mickelberry  v.  Harvev,  58  Led.  523, 
525. 

21  Harrison  v.  Gradv,  12  Jur.  X.  S.  140 ;  Phlllipson  r.  Hovter,  Law 
R.  6  Com.  P.  38  ;  Freestone  i'.  Butcher,  9  Car.  &  P.  643,  645. 

22  Barr  v.  Armstrong,  56  Mo.  577,  588. 

23  Cliflford  v.  Laton,  3  Car.  <fc  P.  15,  16;  Mainwaring  r.  Leslie,  2 
Car.  &  P.  .507  ;  Edwards  t'.  Tow  les,  5  Man.  &  G.  G2i  ;  Bird  v.  Jones,  3 
Man.  &  R.  121  ;  Hardie  !•.  Grant,  8  Car.  <fc  P.  512. 

24  Mickelberry  v.  Harvey,  58  Ind.  523,  525 ;  infra,  n.  20. 

25  Rennick  v.  Ficklin,  5  Mon.  B.  166. 

26  Walthman  v.  Wakefield,  1  Camp.  120, 121 ;  a7tte,  \  89. 

27  Morgan  v.  Chetwynd,  4  Fost,  &  F.  451, 459. 

28  McGeorge  v.  Egan,  7  .Scott,  422. 

29  Godfrev  v.  Brooks,  5  Har.  ;Del.)  396  ;  Furlong  v.  Hvsom,  35  Me. 
332  ;  ante,  {  83,  n.  .58. 

§  98.    Determination   of  wife's  agency  for   husband. — 


§  98  AGENCY   OF  WIFE   FOR   HUSBAND.  152 

1.  Agency  in  fact.  A  wife's  agency  irt  fact  to  act  for  her 
husband  determines  when  he  becomes  insane  ^  or  dies,'^ 
and  wlien  he  revokes  it.^  He  maj^  revoke  it  (1)  by  giv- 
ing notice  to  tliird  parties  not  to  deal  with  her  on  his 
credit.*  Tliis  notice  is  not  generally  necessary,*  but  if  it 
is  necessary  it  must  be  actual  ^ — a  general  newspaper 
advertisement,  for  example,  is  no  notice  to  one  who 
does  not  see  it.'  (2)  B3'  prohibiting  her  from  acting  as 
his  agent.8  Such  prohibition  is  effectual  wliother  it  be 
known  to  tlie  parties  with  whom  she  deals  or  not ;  ^ 
stm,  if  her  husband  continues  to  allow  her  to  act  as  his 
agent  he  is  estopped  from  setting  up  a  private  proliibi- 
tion ;  '**  and  he  must  give  actual  notice  of  the  prohibi- 
tion to  all  jjersons  with  whom  he  has  previously 
allowed  her  to  deal  as  liis  agent.''  This  prohibition 
must  be  clear  and  definite,''^  but  it  may  be  inferrable 
from  circumstances,'^  as  when  he  himself  assumes 
comjilete  control  of  the  household,'*  or  when  they 
break  up  housekeeping.'*  So  giving  the  wife  an  allow- 
ance may  be  a  revocation  of  her  authority  to  pledge 
his  credit,'^  but  not  unless  it  appears  that  it  was  meant 
to  have  this  effect.'^  Wlien  a  wife's  agency  in  fact  is 
revoked,  her  agency  in  law  may  nevertheless  re- 
main.'* 

2.  Agency  in  law.  A  wife's  agency  in  law  to  act  for 
her  husband  determines  when  he  dlos,'°  but  not  when 
he  becomes  insane;^  nor  can  he  by  any  act  of  his, 
such  as  notice  not  to  trust  her,^'  destroy  it.^' 

1  Alexanrlor  r.  Miller,  16  Pa.  St.  215,  219,  220.  See  Davis  v.  Merrill, 
47  N.  H.  20S,  211. 

2  Blades  v.  Free,  9  Barn.  <fe  C.  167,  170;  Smout  v.  Ilberry,  10  Mees. 
&  W.  I  ;  stinson  v.  Prescott,  15  Gray,  SSo,  337 ;  Giiiocliio  v.  Porcella, 
3  Bradf.  277. 

3  Like  any  other  agency  in  fact.  Consult  Ewells  Evans  Ag.  pp. 
76,  et  seq. 

4  Barr  v.  Armstrong,  56  Mo.  577,  581 ;  Daubney  v.  Hughes,  60  N.Y. 
187,189.  SeeMonsonv.  Williams,  6 Gray, 416;  Rumney?>.  Keyes,7N.  H. 
571 ;  Conir  v.  HUdebrand,  1  Ind.  555 ;  Walker  v.  Leighton,  31  N.  H. 


153  AGENCY   OF   WIFE   FOR   HUSBAND.  ?  98 

in  ;  McCutchen  v.  McGaliav,  11  Johns.  281 ;  6  Am.  Deo.  .37:!  ;  Roller  v. 
Phillips,  :f9  N.  V.  "ol  :  0?clcn  v.  Prentice,  33  Barb.  160  ;  Cromwell  v. 
Benjamin,  41  Barb.  553. 

5  Infra,  n.  9. 

6  See  Ewell's  Evans  Ag.  p.  -134. 

7  Woodward  v.  Barnes,  43  Vt.  330,  334  ;  46  Vt.  332 ;  14  Am.  Rep.  62fi. 

8  Morsran  v.  Chetwvntl,  4  Fost.  &  F.  451,  458  ;  Debenham  v.  Mel- 
lon, Law  K.  5  Q.  B.  D.  394,  402  ;  Law  R.  6  App..C.  24,  33  ;.  Clark  v.  Co:;, 
.32  Mich.  204,  213  ;  Woodward  v.  Barnes,  43  Vt.  330,  ■3:«  ;  14  Am.  Rep. 
626. 

9  Debenham  v.  Mellon,  Law  R.  6  App.  C.  24,  .32  ;  Law  R.  5  Q.  B.  D. 
394,  399,  40!;  Jolly  v,  Rees,  15  Com.  B.  N.  8.  623;  Mizen  v.  Pick,  3 
Mees.  &  W.  481. 

10  Debenham  v.  Mellon,  Law  R.  0  App.  C.  21,  33  ;'  ante,  I  83. 

11  Wallis  V.  Beddick,  22  Week.  R.  1  ;  Debenham  r.  Mellon,  Law  R. 

5  Q.  B.  D.  394,  40  i  ;  Daubuey  v.  Hughes,  CO  N.  Y.  187, 191 ;  Cony  v.  Pat- 
ton,  2  Ashm.  1-iO. 

12  Morgan  V.  Chetwyud,  4  Fost.  &  F.  451,  4.5S. 

13  Ante,  I  97. 

14  Consult  ante,  ?  94. 

15  See  Edwards  v.  Towels,  G  Scott  N.  R.  G41  ;  Bird  v.  Jones,  3  Man.. 

6  R.  121. 

16  See  Seaton  v.  Benedict,  5  Bing.  28  ;  Holt  v.  Brien,  4  Barn.  & 
Aid.  252  ;  Dennys  x\  Sargeant,  6  Car.  &  P.  419  ;  Mizen  v.  Pick,  3  Mees. 
&  W.  481. 

17  See  Ruddock  v.  Marsh,  1  Hurl.  &  N.  601,  604  ;  ante,  ?  9.5. 

18  Woodward  v.  Barnes,  43  Vt.  330,  334. 

19  Snjyra,  n.  2.    Consult  ante,  ?  64  ;  Stewart  M.  <fc  D.  ??  180,  452,  459. 

20  Richardson  v.  Dubois,  Law  R.  5  Q.  B.  51,53;  Read  v.  Legard,  B 
Ex.  637  ;  Alexander  v.  Miller,  16  Pa.  St.  215,  220  ;  ante.,  i  64. 

21  Harris  v.  Morris,  4  Esp.  41,  42. 

22  Stewart  M.  &  D.  §  180. 


§§  99-100  POSTNUPTIAL   SETTLEMENTS.  154 

CHAPTER  VI. 

Postnuptial  Settlements  —  Dealinos. 

Art.  I.  In  General,  H  99-101 

II.  Form,  H  102,  103. 

III.  Consideration,  H  101-108. 

IV.  Fraud,  ^  109-112. 

V.  Creditor's  Rights,  H  113-118. 

VI.  Possession,  H  119-121. 

VII.  Remedies,  {}  122-124. 

VIII.  Particular  Kinds  op,  H  125-134. 

Article  I. — Postnuptial  Settlements  in  General. 

I  99.    Term  "  postnuptial  settlement "  defined. 
{  100.    Valid,  void,  and  voidable  settlements. 
?  101.    On  what  validity  depends. 

§  99.  Term  "postnuptial  settlement"  defined. — The 
term  "  postnuptial  settlement,"  as  used  in  this  chapter, 
includes  all  transfers  of  property,  direct  or  indirect, 
between  husband  and  wife.  (Art.  viii.)  The  party 
from  whom  the  property  passes  is  called  the  settlor; 
the  party  to  whom,  the  seMee. 

I  100.  Valid,  void,  and  voidable  settlements.  —  A  post- 
nuptial settlement  may  be  wholly  valid  as  to  all  the 
world,  or  partly  valid  and  party  invalid.  Thus,  post- 
nuptial settlements  are  usually  valid  between  the  par- 
ties ;i  one  maj''  be  binding  on  the  settlor,"^  his  heirs  and 
representatives,^  and  his  voluntary  assignees,*  but  in- 
valid as  against  his  creditors  ;  *  valid  as  to  some  (subse- 
sequent)  creditors,*  but  invalid  as  to  others  (existing) 
creditors  ;  ^  valid  as  to  part  of  the  property  settled,  but 
invalid  as  to  the  rest  ;*  invalid  as  an  absolute  grant  but 


155  POSTXUPTIAIi  SETTLEMENTS.  ?  100 

valid  as  a  security.*  Whether  a  settlement  is,  when  it 
is  valid  between  the  parties,  but  otherwise  invalid,  void, 
or  voidable,  does  not  seem  to  be  clearly  determined.'" 
Thougli  "void"  is  usually  the  word  used,''  the  better 
oijiniou  seems  to  be  that  it  is  voidable  only.'^  For  a 
bona  fide  [)urchaser  for  value  from  a  settlee  whose  title 
is  invalid  against  creditors,  gets  a  valid  title  even 
against  such  creditors,'^  which  could  not  be  the  case 
if  the  original  settlement  was  absolutely  void  against 
them;"  and  this  is  true  of  both  realty '»  and  person- 
alty ;  'fi  so  property  previously  conveyed  in  fraud  of 
creditors  does  not  pass  by  a  deed  from  the  settlor  for 
the  benefit  of  such  creditors  ;^^  so,  only  a  creditor  can 
allege  the  invalidity  of  the  settlement.'^  The  reason 
the  word  "void"  is  so  often  used  is  that  in  the  great 
mass  of  cases  no  special  proceeding  need  be  resorted  to 
to  have  a  settlement  declared  void,  but  the  question  of 
validity  may  be  determined  in  any  proceeding  at  law 
or  in  equity  to  which  both  the  settlor  and  settlee  or 
their  respective  successors  are  parties.'* 

1  CushWii,  5  Md.  44,  50  ;  post,  U  104, 115,  123. 

2  Garner  v.  Gravy,  54  Iiul.  ISS,  liC 

3  Jones  V.  Obenchaln,  lOGratt.  259,  267. 

4  Eogers  v.  Fates,  5  Pa.  St.  1.54, 158. 

5  Niller  v.  Johnson,  27  Md.  611 ;  post,  5?  113-118, 

G    Plummer  v.  Jarmon,  44  Md.  6:52,  630  ;  poH,  ?  117. 

7  Crooks,  34  Ohio  St.  610,  615  ;  post,  'i  llfi. 

8  Farni'TS  v.  Long,  7  Bush,  337,  a40;  Wickes  v.  Clarke,  8  Paige, 
101,  172;  pn.it,  ?  100. 

9  Herschfeldt  v.  George,  6  Mich.  456,  4ftS  ;  post,  H  106,  132, 

10  See  Bump  Fraud.  Convey,  ch.  xvi. ;  post,  i  114. 

11  Holland  ?i.  Croft,  20  Pick.  321,  33,S  ;  Schumann  v.  Peddicord,  50 
Md.  560,  563 ;  Mulford  v.  Peterson, :»  N.  J.  L.  127,  132. 

12  Anderson  v.  Roberts,  18  Johns.  515,  527  ;  9  Am.  Dec.  235. 

13  Bean  v.  Smith,  2  Mason,  2,52,  272;  Eldred  v.  Drake,  43  Iowa,  .569, 
570;  Oriental  Bk.  v.  Haskins,  3  Met.  332,  .340;  37  Am.  Dec.  140  ;  Farm- 
ers V.  Brooke,  40  Md.  249,  257  ;  Phelps  r.  Morrison,  24  N.  J.  Eq.  196,  198, 
19:) ;  Anderson  v.  Koberts,  18  Johns.  515,  .525,  .530;  9  Am.  Dec.  235.  Not 
of  course  in  case  of  notice :  Green  v.  Early,  39  Md.  223,  229. 

14  See  Levi  v.  Booth,  58  Md.  305,  311. 


W  101-102  POSTNUPTIAL  SETTLEilENTS.  156 

15  Eldred  r.  Drake,  43  Iowa,  569,  370. 

15  Farmers  r.  Brooke,  40  5Xd  240,  VT,. 

IT  Scheffer  v.  Seltz,  Md.  Law  Koc.  Mar.  22,  18S4. 

18  Coshwa,  5  Md.  44,  50  ;  pwU  \  123. 

13  Poil,  EE3tEDIE3,  \\  123-124. 

\  101.  On  what  tli3  validitj  of  postnuptial  settlements 
dapends.  —  The  validity  of  a  postnuptial  settlement  de- 
pends or  may  depend  on,  (1)  the  capacity  of  husband 
and  wife  to  contract  together;  (2)  the  form  of  the  settle- 
ment ;  (3)  the  consideration ;  (4)  the  absence  of  fraud 
or  duress ;  (.5)  the  rights  of  third  parties  standing  in  the 
position  of  creditors.  The  capacity  of  parties  has  al- 
ready been  discussed  (sections  40-4(3) ;  the  other  above- 
mentioned  topics  are  treated  in  this  chapter  (articles 
ii.-v.). 

Article  II. — Form  of  Postxtptial  Settlements. 

I  102.    AVTien  formalities  are  necessary. 

\  VP,.    Various  form^s  of  settlements. 

\  102.  When  formalities  are  necessary.  —  In  some  States 
all  transfers  of  property  between  husband  and  wife 
must  be  recorded,'  or  ratified  by  a  court ;  *  in  others,  a 
wife  must  file  a  statement  of  all  her  separate  property 
of  which  her  husband  ha.s  possession;'  and  generally 
a  married  woman  cannot  release  her  marriage  rights 
except  by  ^v^iting  or  deed.*  But  acts  requiring  record 
of  marriage  settlements  apply  only  to  those  in  consid- 
eration of  marriage,*  not  to  postnuptial  settlements.* 
Otherwise  the  formalities  are  the  same  as  in  transfers 
between  strangers.' 

1  Teagne  *.  Downs,  79  X.  C.  280,  287 ;  Lewis  v.  Caperton,  8  Gratt. 
148, 165. 

2  Bowman  f.  Kaufman,  30  La.  An.  1021,  1025;  Keller  v.  Ruiz,  21 
La.  An.  AS  ;  Atkinson,  15  La.  An.  401,  492. 

3  Smith  r.  Hewett,  13  Iowa,  94,  96  ;  Jones,  19  Iowa,  236,  239  240 ; 
prttl,  i'i  120.  121. 


157  POSTNUPTIAL   SETTLEMENTS.  §§  103-105 

4  Randies,  &i  Ind.  93, 100  ;  post,  \\  270-2?2. 

5  Stewart  M.  <fc  D.  {e  »i-36.     • 

6  Banks  i-.  Brown,  2  Hill  Ch.  558,  oH', ;  30  Am.  Dec.  380  ;  overruling 
Price  V.  White,  1  Bail.  Ch.  244,  263. 

7  As  to  desirability  of  formalities,  seeposi,  ?|  120, 121. 

g  103.  Various  forms  of  postnuptial  settlement.  —  Post- 
nuptial settlements  may  be  formal  or  informal,  and  in 
their  various  forms  are  hereinafter  particularly  dis- 
cussed, (article  viii.). 


Article  III.  —  Consideration  in  Postnuptial  Set- 
tlements. 

J  104.  Nc?ces.sity  of  consideration. 

\  10.5.  Kinds  of  consideration. 

{  103.  Adequacy  of  consideration. 

{  107.  Effect  of  consideration. 

?  108.  :Miscellaueous  points  as  to  conslderatloti, 

§  104.  Necessity  of  consideration  in  postnuptial  settle- 
ments. —  A  consideration  is  necessary  to  render  an  exec- 
utory contract  enforeible,  whether  at  law'  or  in  equity,^ 
and  to  render  an.  executed  .settlement  valid  as  against 
creditors; 3  but  voluntary  .settlements  or  executed  gifts 
are  binding  between  the  parties.*  A  voluntary  settle- 
ment is  one  without  consideration.'  The  word  "  consid- 
eration "'  used  alone  means,  in  this  article,  con5ideration 
recognized  by  law  —  that  is  to  say,  valuable  or  real 
consideration. 8 

1  1  Parsons  Cont.  427  ;  infra,  n.  2. 

2  Crooks,  34  Ohio  St.  610,  61.5.  No  gift  good  without  deliverv: 
Pos^  li  r20, 127. 

3  Sexton  r.  Wheaton,  8  Wheat.  220  :  1  Am.  L.  C.  171 ;  post,  ??  109, 
113-118.    As  to  scope  of  word  "  creditors,"  see  post,  i  115. 

4  Plummer  v.  Jarman,  44  Md.  fifi,  637:  Peirce  ?•.  Thompson.  17 
Pick.  .31)1,  :W3  :  Wilder  r.  Brooks,  10  Minn.  50,  54  ;  Reid  v.  Gray,  37  Pa. 
bt.  508,  510  ;  j>ost,  li  124,  127. 

5  Post,  i'i  105-107. 

6  Post,  ?  105. 

H.  &  W.— 14. 


'i  105  POSTNUPTIAL,    SETTLEMENTS.  158 

I  105.  Kinds  of  consideration  in  postnuptial  settlem3nt3. 
—  Postnuptial  settlements  are  made  in  consideration 
of  love  and  afiection,  or  of  some  valuable  thing,  or  of 
some  nominal  thing. 

1  Love  and  affection.  "Love  and  affection "  is  a 
meritorious  consideration  :-  it  serves  often  to  explain  a 
grantor's  purpose  and  to  disprove  a  fraudulent  intent ;  - 
it  is  a  good  consideration  as  against  the  grantor  and  liis 
representatives  ;  ^  but  it  is  not  a  valuable  consideration,' 
it  will  not  sustain  an  executory  contract  at  all,*  or  a 
settlement  in  prejudice  of  the  riglits  of  creditors.^ 
Existing  marriage  is  a  consideration  of  tlie  same  kind  ;^ 
as  is  a  liusband's  desire  to  make  provision  for  the  sup- 
port he  owes^  liis  wife.^ 

2.  Valuable  consideration.  Each  of  (lie  following  is  a 
valuable  consideration  :  A  release  of  dower,^"  or  homo- 
stead,!'  or  previous  settlement, ^^  or  separate  jiroperty 
rights ;  ^^  an  antenuptial  enforcible  promise  to  make  a 
settlement ;"  an  existing  debt'*  tliough  bai'red  by  lim- 
itations ;  1^  a  wife's  equity  of  settlement ; ''  use  of  prop- 
erty with  understanding  that  it  should  bo  replaced ; '^ 
cash  received  as  a  loan ;  '*  rents  collected  as  agent ;  ^° 
wife's  right  of  survivorship  in  mortgage  to  her.''^^  It  is 
a  valuable  considei'ation  for  a  settlement  that  a  court 
of  equity  would  have  compelled  its  execution.^*  If 
husband  and  wife,  each  of  them  having  interests,  no 
matter  how  much,  or  of  what  degree,  or  of  what  qual- 
ity, come  to  an  agreement  which  is  afterwards  embod- 
ied in  a  settlement,  it  is  a  bargain  and  a  transaction  on 
valuable  consideration.^^ 

3.  Nominal  consideration.  Each  of  (he  following  i ; 
a  mere  nominal  consideration  —  really  no  consideration 
at  all :  The  wife's  property  which  by  law  is  the  hus- 
band's ;  2^  dower  previously  voluntarily  released ;  ^^ 
property  previously  voluntarily  given  up;^"  cohabita- 


159  POSTXTJPTIAIi    SETTLEMENTS.  g  105 

tion,  ■when  this  is  a  dutj^ ;  -'  the  wife's  services,  when 
these  belong  to  hei*  husband.''* 

1  McMillan  v.  Peacock,  57  Ala.  127, 123  ;  Clayton  v.  Brown,  17  Ga. 
217,  220;  Majors  v.  Everton.  8!)  111.  56.  57  ;  31  Am.  Rep.  65;  Herder, 
23  Kan.  391,  392  ;  Orr,  8  Bush,  156,  1.59  ;  Todd  v.  Wickliff,  18  Hon.  B. 
866.!)0«;  Worthlngton  v.  Bullitt,  6  Md.  172,  19S ;  Peirce  v.  Thompson, 
17  Pick.  301,  393  ;  Wells  v.  Treadwell,  28  Miss.  717.  726;  Whitaker,  52 
N.  Y.  308,  371  ;  11  Am.  Kep.  711. 

2  Wells  V.  Treadwell,  28  Miss.  717,  72G. 

3  Orr,  8  Bush,  156, 159  ;  Peirce  v.  Thompson,  17  Pick.  3J1,  39.!. 

4  Claj'ton  V.  Brown,  17  Ga.  217,  220  ;  supra,  n.  1. 

5  Whitaker,  52  N.  Y.  368,  371 ;  11  Am.  Rep.  711. 

6  Clayton  ii.  Brown,  17  Ga.  217,  220  ;  supra,  n.  1. 

7  Llovd  V.  Fulton,  91  U.  S.  479,  485  ;  Simpson  v.  Graves,  Riley  Eq. 
232  ;  Stewart  M.  &'D.ll  .33,  473. 

8  Ante,  i  64. 

9  Pale  V.  Lincoln,  02  111.  22,  26  ;  Herschfeldt  v.  George,  6  Mich.  4."i6. 
465;  Wilder  v.  Brooks,  10  Minn.  50,  54;  Crooks,  34  Ohio  St.  610,  6.5  ; 
Jones  V.  Obenchain,  10  Gratt.  259,  262.    Consult  ante,  i  87. 

10  Sykes  v.  Chadwick,  18  Wall.  141 ;  Hoot  v.  Sorre'l,  11  Ala.  386, 
400  ;  Nalle  v.  Lively,  15  Fla.  130  ;  Sedgwick  v.  Tucker,  90  Ind.  271,  277; 
Brown  v.  Rawlings,  72  Ind.  505  ;  Randies,  6!  Ind.  9.5 ;  HoUowell  v. 
Simonson,  21  Ind.  398,  400  ;  Unger  v.  Price,  9  Md.  552 ;  BuUard  v. 
Briggs,  7  Pick.  53.3,  53S;  19  Am.  Dec.  292  ;  W-m-.I  v.  Crotty,  4  Met.  59; 
Randall,  37  Mich.  503, 572  ;  Woodson  v.  Pool,  19  Mo.  340,  ;J44  ;  Garlick  v. 
Strong,  3  Paige,  440;  Searing,  9  Paige,  2S.J ;  Kellv  v.  Case,  18  Hun, 
472,  474  ;  Duffy  v.  Insurance,  8  Watts  &  S.  413,  434  ;  Banks  v.  Brown, 
Riley  Ch.  131,  135 ;  30  Am.  Dec.  380  ;  Payne  v.  llutchesou,  32  Gratt. 
812. 

11  Sproul  V.  Atchison,  22  Kan.  336,  340  ;  Keyes  v.  Rines,  37  Vt.  260, 
264. 

12  Phila.  r.  Riddle,  25  Pa.  St.  259,  262. 

13  Worthington  v.  Farber,  .52  Ala.  45,  47;  Maraman,  4  Met.  (Kv.) 
84, '89;  Drui-v  r.  I'.riscoc.  42  Md.  1.54,  162  ;  Tellvr  v.  i'.islu.p.  ,S  Minn.  226, 
228;  Buttcrrti'lil  r.  Stanton,  41  Mi.ss.  15,  .l.l ;  (Jickc;-/'.  Mai  ti:i,  ."'0  Pa.  St. 
138,140,141;  Pfciircr  c.  Lytic,  r,s  Pa.  St.  ::s'i,  :;:n  ;  Uca.ly  c.  Bragg,  1 
Head,  511,  515  ;  Williams  v.  Powell.  12  (iratt.  372,  :i6~>  ;  Rose  ik  Brown, 
H  W.  Va.  122, 136  ;  Wochoska,  45  Wis.  423,  420. 

14  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ?  3.3.  See  Mechanics  r.  Tavlor,  2  Cranch  C.  C. 
507;  Andrews  v.  Jones,  10  Ala.  401,  421  ;  Harper  v.  Scott,  12  Ga.  125  ; 
Lvne  V.  Bank,  5  Marsh.  J.  J.  ;>45,  .V)2 ;  Bi'lfonl  v.  Crane,  16  N.  J.  Eq. 
26.5,  271  ;  Reade  i'.  Livingston,  3  Johns,  ch.  4.S1,  4SS  ;  8  Am.  Dec.  520  ; 
Saunders  v.  Ferrill,  1  Ired.  97,  102  ;  Caines  v.  Marley,  2  Yerg.  582,  588. 

15  Wilson  V.  Sheppard,  28  Ala.  023,  629  ;  Jones  v.  Brandt,  69  Iowa, 
332,  347  ;  Latimer  r.  Glenn,  2  Bush,  535,  .541  ;  Lehman  v.  I-evy,  30  La. 
An.  74.5,  7.50  ;  Pfeiffer  c.  Lytle,  58  Pa.  St.  386,  391 ;  ante,  I  45. 

16  French  v.  Mothy,  03  Me.  326,  328. 

17  Montefiore  v.  Bchrens,  Law  R.  1  Eq.  171;  Bradford  r.  Golds- 
bo.-ough,  15  Ala.  311,  315  ;  McCaulev  v.  Rodes,7  Mon.  B.  462  ;  INIcClun- 
iiluin  V.  r.easlev,  17  IMon.  B.  Ill,  114  ;  Oswald  v.  Hoover,  43  Md.  300, 
:;0;);  Stockctt  c.  Ilollidav,  9  Md.  4.S0,  49.S  ;  Partridge  ?'.  Havens,  10 
P.iige,  018,  024,  025  ;  Waldeii,  ;J3  Gratt.  83,95,  90  ;  Poiadjxter  v.  Jeffries, 
loCi:att.  30.;,  373. 


§  106  posTXurTiAL  settle:jents.  160 

18  Butterfield  v.  Stanton,  44  Miss.  15,  35. 

19  Teller  v.  Bishop,  8  Minn.  220,  228. 

20  Barker  v.  Morrill,  55  Ga.  3:52,  3:?4. 

21  Stoekett  v.  HoUiday,  9  Md.  4S0,  403. 

22  Wvkes  ».  Clarke,  8  Paisre,  171,  172 ;  Poindexter  v.  Jeffries,  15 
Gratt.  3G:i,  373  ;  Putiiam  v.  Bicknell,  18  Wis.  3Xi,  337. 

23  Teasdale  v.  Braithwaite,  Law  R.  4  Ch.  D.  85,  90  ,  46  Law  J.  Cb. 
396. 

24  Ream  v.  Karnes,  90  Ind.  167, 172  ;  Buohanan  v.  Lee,  69  Ind.  117  ; 
Bayne  v.  State,  Md.  Law  Ree.  Aug.  23,  1884  ;  Oswald  v.  Hoover,  43 
Md  360,  368  ;  Plummer  v.  Jarman,  44  Md.  032,  637  ;  Peirce  v.  Thomp- 
son, 17  Pick.  391,  393  ;  Gicker  v.  Martin,  50  Pa.  St.  138, 141. 

25  Woodson  v.  Pool,  19  Mo.  340,  344. 

26  Whittlesv  v.  MnMahon,  13  Conn.  138 ;  26  Am.  Dec.  .382  ;  Lvne  v 
Bank  5  Marsli.  J.  J  545,  .552  ;  Sabel  v.  Slingluff,  .52  Md.  132,  134  ;  Kuhn 
->'.  Stansfield,  28  Md.  210,  216  ;  Terry  v.  Wilson,  63  Mo.  493,  4!I9  ;  Wood- 
son V.  Pool.  19  Mo.  .340,  .344 ;  Clark  v.  Rosekrans,  31  N.  J.  Eq.  G65,  667  ; 
Johnston,  31  Pa.  St.  450,  454;  Perkins,  1  Tenn.  Ch.  537;  Cheatam  v. 
Hess,  2  Tenn.  Ch.  763. 

27  Ante,  ?  59. 

28  Belford  v.  Crane,  16  N.  J.  Eq.  265,  271 ;  ante,  §  6.5. 

g  106.  Adequacy  of  consideration  in  marriage  settle- 
ments.—  As  a  general  rule,  if  a  consideration  is  real  (val- 
uable) its  adequacy  is  not  inquired  into.'  But  inade- 
quacy of  con.si deration  is  evidence  of  fraud.*  And  as 
against  creditors  the  consideration  for  a  settlement 
must  be  fair  and  reasonable,^  the  payment  of  a  trivial 
sum,*  or  such  a  disproportionate  consideration  as  two 
hundred  and  seventy  dollars,  for  property  worth  two 
thousand  dollars,*  or  four  hundred  dollars  for  property 
worth  eighteen  hundred  dollars,^  will  not  defeat  credi- 
tors' rights  ; '  as  to  them  the  settlement  is  voluntary  to 
the  extent  of  the  excess  ;8  and  though  if  the  settlee  has 
acted  in  good  faith  he  or  she  will  be  protected  as  a  cred- 
itor,8  and  the  settlement  treated  as  a  securitj*  for  the 
actual  consideration, 10  in  the  case  of  bad  faith  he  or  she 
will  not  be  protected  at  all.'' 

1  Hoot  V.  Sorrell,  11  Ala.  .3.87.  400 ;  Drury  it.  Briscoe,  42  Md.  1»1, 163  ; 
Duffv  v.  Insurance,  8  Watts  &  S.  413,  435  ;  Banks  v.  Brown,  Riley  Ch. 
131,  1.38  ;  30  Am.  Dec.  380  ;  Taylor  v.  Executor,  4  Desaus.  Eq.  'l-',  231. 
Se3  Anson,  Contracts,  p.  63;  Parsons,  Contracts,  429;  Lawrence 
V.  McCalmont,  2  How.  426  ;  Follett  v.  Rose,  3  McLean,  32  ;  Stewart  v. 
State,  2  Bar.  &  G.  114 ;  Hubbard  v.  Coolidge,  1  Met.  84  ;   Knobb  v. 


161  POSTNUPTIAL   SETTLEMENTS.  ?  107 

lilndsey,  5  Ohio,  471  ;  Goree  v.  Wiison,  1  Bail.  597  ;  Brachan  v.  Griffin, 
3  Call,  4."i3  ;  Kiflfler  v.  Chamborlai;i,  -11  Vt.  62.  But  see  Schnell  v.  Nell, 
17  Incl.  21) ;  Bailey  v.  Bay,  26  Me.  bS. 

2  GofiFr.  Rogers,  71  Ind.  459,  461 ;  post,  i  112. 

3  Hollowell  V.  Sinionson,  21  Ind.  398,  400 ;  Bullard  v.  Briggs,  7 
Pick.  bXi,  5:!8  ;  19  Am.  Dec.  2;i2. 

4  Worthington  v.  Bullitt,  6  Md.  172,  198 ;  Den  v.  York,  13  Ired.  206, 
211. 

5  Peigiie  v.  Snovvden,  1  Desaus.  Eq.  531, 592. 

6  Herschfeldt  v.  George,  6  Mich.  456,  4GS.  Five  thousand  dollars 
for  twenty  thou.sand  dollars  :   Worthington  v.  Bullitt,  6  Md.  172,  198. 

7  .See  Farmers  v.  Long,  7  Bush,  3"7,  340 ;  Bowie  v.  Stonestreet,  C 
Mrl.  418,  433 ;  Worthington  v.  Bullitt,  6  Md  172, 198  ;  Ilenkle  v.  Wilson, 
5.i  Md.  2S7,  294  ;  Bullard  v.  Brig^'s,  7  Pick.  533,  5:;8  ;  19  Am.  Dec.  242  ; 
Hcrschfi-lilt  V.  George,  6  Mich.  4.')6,  4ftS  ;  Hill  v.  Biigg,  .52  Miss.  397,  402  ; 
Kelley  v.  Case,  IS  Hun,  472,  474  ;  Den  v.  York,  13  Ired.  2fifi,  210 ;  Peigne 
V.  Snowdcn,  1  Desaus.  Eq.  591,  592  ;  Johnston  v.  Gill,  27  Gratt.  587,  591  ; 
Davis,  25  Gratt.  587,596  ;  William  v.  Powell,  12Gr;'tt.  :~2,  3h4  ;  Warren 
V.  Eanney,  50  Vt.  655,  656. 

8  Johnston  v.  Gill,  27  Gratt.  587,  .591. 

9  Davis,  25  Gratt.  587,  59!) ;  William  v.  Powell,  12  (iratt.  S72,  :185  ; 
infra,  n.  10. 

10  Hinkle  v.  Wilson,  53 Md.  287, 294  ;  Herschfeldt  v.  George,  6  Mich. 
456,  468  ;  supra,  n.  9. 

11  Warren  v.  Ranney,  .50  Vt.  6.55,  656;  post,  ?  107. 

?  107.  Effect  of  considoration  in  postnuptial  settlements. 
— A  consideration  cliange.s  the  cliaracter  of  a  transac- 
tion and  malves  it  a  bargain  instead  of  a  gift.i  But 
when  a  settlement  is  actually  intended  to  hinder,  de- 
lay, or  defraud  creditors,^  the  setllce  sharing  in  this 
intent,^  it  is,  under  the  statutes,*  void  as  to  them, 
though  made  upon  valuable  consideration.'  On  the 
other  hand,  though  a  settlement  is  originally  fraudu- 
lent in  fact  or  in  law,^  a  bona  fide  assignee  of  tlie  settlee 
without  notice'  gets  a  good  title  if  the  assignment  i.s  on 
valuable  consideration.^  So  it  is  .said  a  valuable  con- 
sideration may  be  subsequently  given  and  yet  sustain 
the  settlement.9  The  most  important  effect  of  an  ade- 
quate valuable  consideration  is  that  it  excludes  the 
presumption  of  fraud  in  law.^" 

1  Teasdale  v.  Braithwalte,  Law  R.  4  Ch.  D.  85,  90  ;  46  Law  J.  Ch. 
396. 

2  PoA/,??  109,  111,  11.3-117. 


I  108  POSTNUPTIAL,   SETTLEMENTS.  162 

3  Prewlt  V.  Wilson,  103  U.  S.  22,  23,  24  ;  post,  ?  111. 

4  Post,  I  114. 

5  Pomproy  v.  Bailev,  43  N.  H.  118, 120  ;  Jletropolitau  r.  Durant,  22 
N.  J.  Eq.  35,  42  ;  ante,  J  105. 

6  Post,  ?  109. 

7  Green  v.  Early,  39  Md.  223,  229,  2:50. 

8  Eldred  v.  Drake,  43  Iowa,  oG7,  570  ;  ante,  ?  100. 

9  Bank  v.  Brown,  2  Hill  Ch.  558,  563  ;  30  Am.  Dec.  380. 
10    Post,  U  109,  114. 

I  108.  Miscellaiioous  points  as  to  consideration  in  post- 
nuptial settlements. —  A  (luit-claiiu  deed  is  pi-esuuitHl  to 
be  without  consideration. ^  The  consideration  stated  ia 
a  deed  is  prima  facie  the  actvial  consideration  as  between 
the  parties  and  their  privies,^  but  not  as  against  cred- 
itors.3  If  a  consideration  is  expres.sed  in  a  written 
contract  no  different  one  may  be  proved.^  Love  and 
affection  being  alleged,  a  valuable  consideration  cannot 
be  proved,^  though  the  contrary  is  held  in  one  case ;  * 
nor  can  the  settlee's  broken  promises  to  treat  the  settlor 
kindly,  in  an  application  to  set  the  settlement  aside.^ 
But  under  "divers  good  causes  and  considerations" 
love  and  affection  may  be  proved,^  or  some  valuable 
consideration.^  The  jihrase  "good  consideration"  in 
tlie  Alabama  statute  is  construed  to  include  "  A^aluable 
consideration."  i" 

1  Loo  mis  V.  Brush,  ."ifi  Mich.  40,  A'. 

2  Mayfield  v.  Kilffour,  31  Md.  240,  245. 

3  Williams  v.  Powell,  12  ttratt.  3?2,  .384  ;  Miilfonl  r.  Peterson,  35 
>'.  J.  L.  127,  1:54,  135. 

4  See  1  Parsons  Cont.  42t),430;  Veacock  v.  McCall,  Gilp.  320;  Emery 
V.  Chase,  5  Me.  232  ;  .Schermerhorn  v.  Vanderheyden,  1  Johns.  139  ;  3 
Am.  Dec.  .304. 

5  Ma>'field  v.  Kilgour,  3  Md.  240,  246. 

6  Bank  v.  Brown,  2  Hill  Ch.  558,  563. 

7  Orr,  8  Bush,  1^56,  159. 

8  Pomeroy  v.  Bailey,  43  N.  H.  118, 121. 

n  See  Cutter  v.  Reynolds,  8  Mon.  B.  596 ;  Maigley  <;  Hauer,  7 
Johns.  :H1. 

10  Killough  V.  Steele,  1  Stewt.  &  P.  262. 


163  POSTNUPTIAL   SETTLEMENTS.  g  109 


Article  IV.  —  Fraud  ix  Postnuptial  Settlements. 

i  109.  Fraud  in  law  and  in  fact. 

i  110.  Fraud  between  the  parties, 

f  111.  Fraud  against  creditors. 

i  112.  Evidence  of  fraud. 

?  109.  Fraud  in  law  and  in  fact. — A  postnuptial  set- 
tlement may  be  fraudulent  in  law  or  fraudulent  in  fact.' 
Though  a  husband  when  he  deals  with  his  Avife  stands 
in  much  the  same  position  as  a  trustee  when  he  deals 
with  his  cestui  que  trust, "^  and  the  law  raises  certain  pre- 
sumptions of  fraud  against  hini,^  the  distinction  be- 
tween fraudulent  in  law  and  fraudulent  in  fact  is 
generally  applied  only  to  conveyances  which  aflfect  the 
rights  of  the  grantor's  creditors.''  A  settlement  made 
with  the  actual  intention  of  hindering,  delaying,  or 
defrauding  creditors  is  fraudulent  in  fact ;  one  which 
naturally  does,  so  is  fraudulent  in  law,  for  the  law 
conclusively  presumes  that  one  intends  the  natural 
consequences  of  his  acts.^  Any  convej-auce  may  be 
fraudulent  in  fact,  but  only  a  voluntary  ^  conveyance 
can  be  fraudulent  in  law.^  For,  howsoever  much  a 
man  is  indebted  he  may  in  good  faith  sell  or  exchange 
his  property,  or  with  it  jiay  one  or  more  of  his  debts  ;■* 
but  he  must  be  just  before  he  is  generous,!"  and  he  can- 
not give  his  propertj'^  away  if  this  makes  his  debts  more 
difficult  to  collect  ;'i  this  necessarily  prejudices  his 
creditor's  rights,  and  the  law  presumes  fraud.'^  If  a 
settlement  be  voluntary  the  grantee's  honesty  will  not 
give  her  any  rights  ;i^  but  if  it  be  on  valuable  consider- 
ation she  will  be  protected  to  the  extent  thereof  unless 
she  be  a  party  to  an  actual  fraud." 

1  Bump  Fraud.  Convey.  22. 

2  Darlington,  86  Pa.  St.  512,  519 ;  27  Am.  Rep.  r26. 

3  Post,  i  no. 


g  no  POSTNUPTIAL,   SETTLEMEXTS.  164 

5  Bump  Fnuul  Convey.  22,  23, 

6  Ante,  U  105,  ICd. 

7  KUiott  ('.  nnrn,  10  Ala.  3-IS,  352  ;  Wood  v.  Savage,  Walk.  Ch.  471, 
475  ;  Wilt'.v  V.  Gray, :«  Miss.  510,  olo. 

8  Wriijht  V.  Stanard,  2  Brock.  311,  315 ;  ante,  I  105,  notes  10-23, 
5106. 

9  Casson  i'.  Murray,  15  Mo.  378,  381  ;  post,  |  116,  n.  6. 

10  Clayton  v.  Brown,  17  Ga.  217,  220 ;  Black  v.  Sanders,  1  Jones,  67. 

11  Sexton  V.  Wheaton,  8  Wheat.  229;  1  Am.  Lead.  Cas.  17;  post, 
§116. 

12  See  Beers  v.  Botsford,  13  Conn.  146, 154  ;  Gardiner  v.  Wheaton,  8 
Me.  373,  381 ;  Jones  v.  Spear,  21  Vt.  426,  431  ;  post,  I  116. 

13  Matson  r.  Melchor,  42  Mich.  477, 480. 

14  Prewit  i'.  Wilson,  103  U.  S.  22,  23,  24  ;  jMst,  §  111 

§  110.  Fraud  between  the  parties  in  postnuptial  settle- 
ments.— Formerly,  a  married  woman  was  deemed  en- 
tirely under  her  husband's  control,  and  incapable  of 
voluntaiy  acts  in  his  presence,'  and  even  now  her 
torts ^  and  crimes^  committed  in  his  presence  are  pre- 
sumed committed  under  his  coercion.  So  in  the  case 
of  contracts.  These  at  common  law  were  void,*  and 
good  in  equity  only  if  proved  to  have  been  fairly  and 
freely  made.*  But  now,  although  the  greatest  good 
■faith  is  required  in  dealings  between  husband  and 
■wafe,®  "v\^hich  are  treated  much  as  dealings  between 
trustee  and  cestui  que  trust  are,^  and  in  case  of  a  gift  by 
her  to  him,^  or  an  inadequate  consideration,^  or  an  ad- 
vantage secured  by  him,'"  the  burden  of  proof  is  on 
him  to  show  that  the  transaction  was  freely  and  delib- 
erately concluded,"  the  mere  fact  that  he  is  her  hus- 
band does  not  render  it  a  fraud  for  him  to  take  property 
from  her;i*  but  she  must  prove  fraud  or  undue  influ- 
ence,'^ and  allowance  will  be  made  for  their  intimate 
relation.!*  The  husband's  fraud  or  duress  will  not 
affect  the  validity  of  a  wife's  transfer  in  the  hands  of  a 
hona  fide  purchaser  for  value ;  '*  she  cannot  have  her 
deed  to  a  third  party  set  aside  on  account  of  her  hus- 


165  FOSTXUPTIAIi   SETTLEJIE>-TS.  g  110 

band's  conduct, i*  unless  they  were  confederates,"  or 
the  husband  acted  as  such  third  partj-'s  agent  in  ob- 
taining tlie  deed.'s  in  spite  of  fraud,  equitj^  -will  sus- 
tain a  settlement  between  husband  and  wife  if  for  the 
benefit  of  them  both.^'  Generally,  courts  of  equity 
alone  will  attord  them  relief.^" 

1  Ante,  i  38  ;  post,  ?  121. 

2  Ante,  ?  66  ;  post,  ch.  xxiv. 

3  Ante,  §  68  ;  post,  ch.  xxv. 

4  Ante,  i  41;  post,  1359. 

5  Ante,  I  4-. 

6  Willetts,  104  111.  122  ;  Campbell,  80  Pa,  St.  298,  309. 

7  Darlington,  8G  Pa.  St.  512,  519  ;  27  Am.  Rep.  726. 

8  Bovd  )'.  De  la  Montagnip,  73  X.  Y.  498,  502;  29  Am.  Rep.  197; 
McRae  v.  Battle,  69  IN'.  C.  98,  107 ;  Darlington,  86  Pa.  St.  512,  520  ;  27 
Am.  Rep.  726. 

9  Birclsong,  2  Head,  289,  296 ;  ante,  ?  106. 

10  Jenne  v.  Marble,  37  Mich.  319,  322. 

11  See  cases  in  notes  8-10  ;  Smyley  v.  Reese,  53  Ala.  89, 101 ;  Camp- 
bell, 80  Pa.  St.  298,  309. 

12  Scarboronsrh  v.  Watkins,  9  Mon.  B.  540, 547,  548  ;  50  Am.  Dec.  528  ; 
Meriam  v.  Harlem,  4  Edw.  Ch.  70,  82. 

13  Witbeck,  25  Mich.  439,  442;  Freeman  v.  Wilson,  51  Miss.  329, 
333. 

14  Consult  Smyley  v.  Reese,  53  Ala.  89, 101 ;  Stone  v.  Wood,  85  111. 
603,  cm  ;  Linn  v.  Blizzard,  70  Ind.  23  ;  Seuscr  r.  Rawson,  50  Iowa,  634  ; 
Scarborough  v.  Watkins,  9  Mon.  B.  540,  547  ;  50  .\m.  Dec.  528  :  Battle 
V.  Ka.sa,  30  La.  An.  WO  ;  Whitridge  v.  Barrv,  42  Md.  140, 153  ;  Eccleston 
?•.  First,  48  Md.  145,  160  ;  Smith  v.  Osborn,  33  Mich.  41P  ;  Whitbeck,  2.d 
Mich.  439,  442  ;  Jenne  v.  Marble,  39  Mich.  319,  322  ;  Freeman  v.  Wilson, 
-il  Miss.  329,  333  ;  Ferdon  v.  Miller,  'M  N.  J.  Eq.  10,  13  n  ;  Remington  v. 
Wright,  43  X.  J.  T  .  4.M,  4.t:  ;  Boyd  v.  De  la  Montai,'nie,  73  X.  Y.  4S9,  •502  ; 
29  Am.  Rep.  197  ;  Rexford,  7  I>ans.  6,  7  ;  Meriam  c.  Harlem,  4  Edw. 
Ch.  70,  82  ;  McRae  v.  Battle,  69  X.  C.  98,  107  ;  Levi  v.  Earl,  3  Ohio  St. 
147;  Campbell,  80  Pa.  St.  298,  1509;  Darlington,  86  Pa.  St.  512,  519;  27 
Am.  Rep.  726  ;  Hammit  v.  Bull,  8  Phila.  29,  30  ;  Birdsong,  2  Head,  289, 
296. 

15  Connecticut  v.  McCormick,  45  Cal.  ."iSO  ;  Spurgin  v.  Traub.  65  111. 
170, 175  ;  Finnegan,  3  Tenn.  Ch.  510  ;  cases  infra,  n.  16  ;  mite,  i  100. 

16  Rogers  v.  Adams,  66  Ala.  600,  602  ;  Collins  v.  Wassell,  34  Ark.  17, 
33;  Connecticut  v.  McCormick,  45  Cal.  580;  Spurgin  v.  Traub,  65  lU. 
170, 175  ;  Green  r.  Scranage,  19  Iowa,  461,  465  ;  Baldwin  v.  Snowden,  11 
Ohio  St.  203,  211  ;  Hammit  v.  Bull,  8  PhUa,  29,  30. 

17  Fargo  v.  Goodspeed,  87  111.  290,  296. 

18  Haskitt  ?•.  Elliott,  58  Ind.  493,  499 ;  Central  v.  Copeland,  18  Md. 
305,  320  ;  Comeggs  c.  Clarke,  44  Md.  108, 110. 

19  Birdsong,  2  Head,  289,  296. 

,20    Stone  v.  Wood,  85  HI.  603,  609  ;  ante,  ?  53  ;  post,  ??  122-124. 


g?  111-112  POSTNUPTIAL   SETTLEMENTS.  166 

^  111  Fraud  against  creditors  in  postnuptial  settlements 
—  A  settlement  fraiulul nit  in  f(ic*J  is  A-oid  as  to  all  cred- 
itors it  was  intended  to  hindei,  delay,  or  defraud,'^ 
whether  the  settlement  is  Aoluntary  or  not,^  and 
whether  the  creditors  are  existing*  or  subsequent;^ 
except  that  if  it  be  made  on  valuable  consideration  ^  it  is 
valid  unless  the  grantee  has  notice  of  the  fraud.'  A 
6ona/frfe  voluntary  ^  conveyance  is  fraudulent  in  law,^ 
as  against  existing  creditorSj^"  but  valid  as  against  sub- 
sequent creditors." 

1  Ante,  5  100. 

2  Ante.  ?  100  ;  2^ost,  U  116,  117, 123. 

3  Clayton  v.  Brown,  17  Gu.  217,221;  Pomeroy  v.  Bailey, -13  N.  H. 
118, 120  ;  Metropolitan  )'.  Durant,  22  N.  J.Eq.  3.i.-12  ;  Aslimeacl  v.  Kean, 
13  Pa.  St.  t8J.  .W7;  .Sniitli  v.  Culbertson, 'J  Kich.  lOG,  110;  Walcott  v. 
Brancier,  10  Tex.  419,  42-1  ;  ante,  U  101-107. 

4  Post,  I  116. 

5  Post,  ?  117. 

6  Ante,  U  lW-103. 

7  Prewit  v.  Wilson,  103  V.  S.'ZZ,  23,24;  M.is'i'-c  v.  Thompson,? 
Peters,  34S,  3!i3  ;  Sisson?'.  Booth,  :M<'onn.  15,  17;  /.iinin'Tnuin  v.  Ilein- 
richs,  43  Iowa,  2G0,  264  ;  Matson  v.  Melchor,  42  Mifh.  477,  4s0. 

8  Ante,  U  104-103. 

9  Elliott  V.  Horn,  10  Ala.  348,  352 ;  Bank  v.  Enais,  Wright,  604,  6a5  ; 
ante,  I  lOJ;  ix>st,  'i  116. 

10  Kohr  V.  Smith,  20  Wall.  31,  35  ;  ]Mst,  |  116. 

11  Clayton  v.  Brown,  30  Ga.  400,  495  ;  post,  ?  117. 

§  112.  Evidence  of  fraud.  —  Fraud  is  a  question  of  law 
or  of  fact.'  Whether  a  bona  fide  voluntary  conveyance 
does  prejudice  the  rights  of  existing  creditors,  .seems  to 
be  a  question  of  law  ;2  the  legal  presumption  is  that  it 
does,''  and  the  burden  of  proof  is  on  the  grantee  to 
show  that  under  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case  the 
provision  was  reasonable;*  that,  for  example,  the 
grantor  Avas  not  insolvent,^  and  had  after  the  .settle- 
ment sufficient*'  funds  accessible'  to  his  creditors  to 
pay  all  his  debts ;  if  the  grantee  does  not  .satisfy  the 
court  to  this  effect,  the  conveyance  will  be  held  fraud- 
ulent.8    In  such  cases  all  the  creditor  has  to  prove  Ls 


1G7  POSTNUPTIAL   SETTLEMENTS  ;J  lH 

the  grantor's  indebtedness  to  him.'  But  when  fraud 
in  fact  is  alleged  by  him,  the  creditor  must  prove  it.'' 
Fraud  is  usually  proved  by  circumstantial  evidence  — 
direct  proof  cannot  be  expected '^ — and  even  the  grant 
ee's  knowledge  of  the  fraud  may  be  inferred  from  cir 
cumstances.'^  Some  of  the  circumstances  which  tend 
to  prove  fraud  and  which  are  called  badges  of  fraud,'' 
are/*  secrecy, ^^  tlie  grantor's  embarrassed  condition,''- 
the  conveyance  of  all  his  property,'"  inadequacy  oi' 
consideration, '8  and  retention  of  possession. i'^  In  such 
cases  fraud  is  simply  a  fact  to  be  ascertained  like  any 
other  fact. 2" 

1  Ante,  i  109. 

2  See  Beers  v.  Bottsford,  13  Conn.  1-lfi,  154  ;  Sherwood  v.  Marwick, 
.5  Me.  295,  302 ;  Meyers  r.  Kins,  42  Md.  65,  71  ;  Farmers  r.  Brooke,  -10 
Md.  24!),  25U  ;  Jones  r.  Spear,  21  Vt.  42(!,  431 ;  cases  cited  infra. 

3  Leavitt,  47  X.  H.  329,  .333  ;  Wcolston,  57  Pa.  St.  452,  456. 

4  Hapgood  )'.  Fisher,  34  Me.  407,  409 ;  .56  Am.  Dec.  663  ;  Warner  v. 
Dove,  33  Md.  579,  583,  587  ;  Leavitt,  47  N.  H.  329,  33 !  ;  Woolstoii,  51  Pa. 
St.  452,  4.56. 

5  Bank  v.  Patten,  1  Rob.  (Va.)  500,  527;  Wilson  v.  Buchanan,  7 
Gratt.  3;34,  340. 

6  Hapgood  V.  Fisher,  .34  Me.  407,  409 ;  53  Am.  Dec.  663  ;  Smith  ?'. 
Reavis,  7  Ired.  .341,  :M3  ,  Izard,  1  Bail.  Ch.  228,  237. 

7  Bnllett  V.  Worthington,  3  Md.  Ch.  90,  lO;  ;  .Vnnin,  24  N.  J.  Kq. 
185,  191,  194. 

8  Warner  v.  Dove,  33  Md.  579,  5S6,  .587  ;  casos  supra. 

9  Clarke  v.  McGeihan,  25  N.  J.  Eq.  423, 424  :  Reynolds  v.  Lansford, 
16  Tex.  286,  291;  Bank  v.  Patton,  1  Roh.  (Va.)  500,527;  Wilson  v. 
Buchanan,  7  Gratt,  334,  340  ;  post,  i  11.5. 

10  Larkin  v.  McMullin,  49  Pa.  St.  29,  .34,  3.5. 

11  Bump  Fraud.  Convey,  chaps.  4,  23,  pp.  •<4,  600,  601, 

12  Zimmerman  v.  Heinrichs,  43  Iowa,  260,  264. 

13  See  Kadogan  ?i.  Kennett,  2  Cowp.  432  ;  Terrell  v.  Green,  11  Ala. 
207. 

14  Bump,  Fraud.  Convey,  ch.  4. 

15  Lvman  v.  Cessford,  15  Iowa,  229,  234  ;  Hatch  r.  Gray,  21  Iowa, 
29,  32, 

16  Bump  Fraud.  Convey,  p,  34  ;  Wilson  v.  Buchanan,  7  Gratt.  334, 
340. 

17  See  Ware  v.  Gardner,  Law  R.  7  Eq.  317,  321  ;  Al-^xander,  1  Low. 
470,  474  ;  Horn  v.  Ross,  20  Ga.  210,  223  ;  Clavton  r.  r.iown,  :»  Ga.  4'I0, 
4'i5  ;  Coates  v.  Gerlach,  44  Pa.  St.  43,  46;  Peisne  r.  Snowden,  1  Desaus. 
.591,  .592 ;  Cram  v.  Stickles,  15  Vt,  2.52,  2.57.  Compare  Wilder  v.  Brooks, 
10  Minn  50,  66  ;  Casson  v.  Murray,  15  Mo.  378,  38L 


g?  113-114  RIGHTS   OF   CREDITORS.  168 

IS  Wright  V.  Stanard,  2  Brock.  311,  314  ;  Bozman  v.  Draughan,  3 
Stewt.  2-13,  2-16  ;  Goffr.  Rogers,  71  Ind.  451),  481 ;  Casson  v.  Murray,  15 

]\io.  378,  -.m. 

19  See  fully  post,  i  121. 

20  Goff  n.  Rogers,  71  Ind.  459,  461  ;  Hapgood  v.  Fisher,  34  Me.  407, 
409  ;  .56  Am.  Dec.  663  ;  Cas.son  v.  Murray,  15  Mo.  378,  383  ;  Pomeroy  v. 
Bailey,  43  N.  H.  118,  122 ;  Larkin  v.  McMuUin,  44  Pa.  St.  29,  35. 


Article  V.  —  Rights  of  Creditors. 

i  113.    Fraudulent  conveyances  defined. 

1  114.    Statutes  protecting  creditors. 

§  115.    Wlio  are  protected  as  creditors. 
i  116.    Rights  of  existing  creditors. 

2  117.    Riglits  of  subsequent  creditors. 

§  H8.    Property  exempt  from  creditor's  rights. 

?  113.  Fraudulent  conveyances  defined.  —  A  transfer  by 
which  the  grantor  hinders,  dehiys  or  defrauds  his  cred- 
itoi-s  is  called  a  "  fraudulent  conveyance."  Such  con- 
veyances are  of  two  Icinds,^  those  which  are  made  with 
the  intent  to  evade  creditors,  where  there  is  fraud  in 
fact,'^  and  those  where  there  is  no  such  intent,  but  which 
being  voluntary,  prejudice  creditor's  riglits,  where  there 
is  fraud  in  law.^  The  usual  rules  as  to  fraudulent  con- 
veyances apply  generally  to  conveyances  between  hus- 
band and  wife.*  But  the  subject  is  too  vast  to  be 
minutely  treated  herein. 

1  See  Elliott  v.  Horn,  10  Ala.  .348,  352. 

2  Williams  v.  Avery,  38  Ala.  115,  IIG ;  nnte,  ?  lOX 

3  Bank  v.  Fatten,  1  Rob.  (Va.)  .500,  527  ;  ante,  I  109. 

4  Sexton  v.  Wheaton,  8  Wheat.  229  ;  1  Am.  Lead.  Cas.  17  ;  Shepar  J, 
7  Johns.  C  h.  .57  ;  Ewell's  Lead.  Cas.  280. 

I  114.  Statutes  protecting  creditors  against  postnuptial 
S3ttlemonts.  —  The  statutes  relating  to  this  subject  whicli 
are  constantly  referred  to,^  which  are  inereh'  declara- 
tory of  the  common  law,^  which,  as  a  part  of  the  com- 
mon law,  are  in  force  in  many  States,^  and  which  form 
the  basis  of  most  mod  rn  statutes  against  fraudulent 


1G9  RIGHTS  OF  CREDITORS.  §  114 

conveyances,*  are :  13  Eliz.  ch.  5,  and  27  Eliz.  ch.  4. 
Statute  13  Eliz.  ch.  5,  provides  that  all  transfers  made 
to  the  end,  purpose,  and  intent  to  delay,  hinder,  or 
defraud  creditors  and  others  of  tlieir  lawful  rights  are 
"utterly  void"  as  against  such  creditors  and  others; 
but  does  not  affect  ho7ia  fide  transfers  for  value.^  Stat  - 
ute  27  Eliz.  cli.  4,  provides  that  all  transfers  made  for 
the  intent  and  purpose  of  defrauding  subsequent  pur- 
chasers are  "  utterly  void"  as  against  such  subsequent 
purchasers ;  but  does  not  affect  bona  fide  transfers  for 
value.^  These  statutes  are  construed  liberally.''  and 
alike  at  law  and  in  equity  ;8  but  while  at  common  law 
fraudulent  intent  was  a  mere  question  of  fact,^  under 
these  statutes  it  became  in  part  a  question  of  law.^"  The 
general  statutes  on  the  subject  in  the  several  States  are 
given  tlie  same  effect  as  these  statutes  in  spite  of  some- 
what different  wording ;  'i  but  the  modern  system  of 
public  records  has  greatly  diminished  the  importance 
of  statute  27  Eliz.  ch.  4.'^  There  are,  moreover,  such 
statutes  as  that  in  Maryland,  which  provides  that  no 
acquisition  of  property  of  wife  from  husband  shall  be 
valid  if  made  in  prejudice  of  the  rights  of  his  creditors,!^ 
and  these  seem  to  add  nothing  to  the  common  law.'* 
Bankruptcy  acts  may  also  affect  such  conveyances,!^  for 
a  convej^ance  by  a  husband  to  his  wife  of  all  his  prop- 
erty is  an  act  of  bankruptcy;'^  and  other  collateral 
statutes  may  jirotect  creditors." 

1  See  citations  under  "Fraudulent  Conveyances"  ii  T'nited 
States  Digest ;  Bump  on  Fraud.  Convev. ;  Wi».xton  ?'.  Wheaton,  8 
Wheat.  229  ;  1  Am.  Lead.  Cas.  17. 

3  Cadogan  v.  Kennet,  Cowp.  434  ;  Hamilton  ?•.  Russell,  1  Crunch, 
30^,  316;  Adams  v.  Brougiiton,  13  Ala.  731,  730;  Wliittlesv  v.  Mc- 
Mahon.lO  Conn.  13S,  141;  26  Am.  Dec.  382 ;  Fleming  c.  Townseiid.  6 
Ga.  103,  lOS ;  .50  Am.  Dec.  31g :  Sparrow  v.  Chesley,  19  Me.  7'i  Hud- 
nal  V.  Wilder,  4  McCord,  2as,  297;  17  Am.  Dec.  744;  Wilt  ?'.  Franl^lin, 
1  Binn.  502,  .514,  323  ;  2  Am.  Dec.  474  ;  Footman  v.  Pendergrass,  ■*  Rich. 
Eq.  .33  ;  Howard  v.  Williams,  1  Bail.  575,  .580 ;  21  Am.  Dec.  483. 

3  Gardner  v.  Cole,  21  Iowa,  205  ;  Bohn  v.  Headley,  7  Har.  &  J.  2.57, 
271 ;  ante,  f  6. 

H.  &  W.  — 15. 


g  115  EIGHTS  OF  CREDITORS.  170 

4  See  Anderson  v.  Hooks,  9  Ala.  704;  Blackman  v.  Wheatou,  13 
Minn.  ;e6. 

5  Alex.  Brit.  Stat.  378-405. 

6  Alex.  Brit.  Stat.  41.^-420. 

7  1  Bish.  il.  W.  §  739. 

8  Ilopkirk  r.  Randolph,  2  Brock.  133, 139 ;  ante,  1 16. 

9  Avery  v.  Street,  6  Watts,  247,  24S  ;  ante,  H  109,  H'i 

10  See  Beers  v.  Botsford,  I'i  Conn.  140,  1.>1  ;  Oardiner  v.  Wheaton,  8 
Me.  37:i,  :i.Sl  ;  Meyers  v.  King,  42  Mil.  6),  71 ;  Jones  v.  Spear,  21  Vt.  426. 
4;u  ;  ante,  I  101.  The  accepted  rule  now  is  that  the  presumptions  or 
law  are  rebuttable .  Cuthi-art  v.  Robinson,  5  Peters,  2fi4,  280  ;  ICehr  v. 
Smith,  20  Wall.  31,  35  ;  post,  i  UG  ;  ante,  '<t  112. 

11  Butterfield  )i.  8  anton,  44  Miss.  15,  30  ;  Johnston  v.  Gill,  27  Gratt. 
587,  592. 

12  Sexton  v.  Wheaton,  8  Wheat.  229  ;  1  Am.  Lead.  Cas.  17,  4S. 

13  Md.  R.  C.  art.  51,  I  19,  p.  481. 

14  See  ScheiTer  v.  Seltz,  Md.  L.  Rec.  March  22,  1<*84  ;  Erdman  v. 
Rosenthal,  60  Md.  312,  3i(i ;  Crane  v.  Barkdoll,  59  Md.  534,  535  ;  llinkle 
V.  Wilson,  53  Md.  287,  292;  Trader  v.  Lowe,  45  Md.  1,  14  ;  Keller,  45 
Md.  270,  275  ;  Plumnxer  )'.  jarinan,  44  Md.  6:44.  637;  M.vers  )».  King,  42 
Md.  65 ;  Drurv  r.  Briscoe,  42  Md.  154  ;  Sanborn  v.  Long,  41  Md.  107  ; 
Farmers  v.  Brooke,  40  Md.  347,257:  Green  v.  Earlv,  :i:t  Md.  223,  229 ; 
Green  c.  Townseml,  :i!i  Md.  223;  Warner  v.  DoVi-,  :i3  .Md.  579,  586; 
Mavfield  v.  Kilginu-,  31  Md.  240,244;  Kulin  r.  Staiistield,  2,s  Md.  210 ; 
Insurance  i\  Deale,  18  Md.  26  ;  Jones,  18  Md.  464  ;  Stockett  v.  Hollidav, 
9  Md.  480*;  Worthington  v.  Bullitt,  6  Md.  192, 198. 

15  Peachy  Mar.  Settlem.  210,  ti  seq. 

16  Alexander,  1  Low.  470,  474. 

17  Reich,  26  Minn.  97,  98. 

g  115.  Wio  are  protected  as  creditors.  —  To  be  fraudu- 
lent and  invalid,  a  .settlement  must  defeat  or  prejudice 
a  just  and  lawful  riglit  of  action  in  contract  or  tort 
enforcible  at  law  or  in  equity ;  i  one  who  has  such  a 
right  is  protected^  as  a  creditor  ;*  but  every  settlement 
is  valid,  unless  tliere  is  fraud  between  the  parties,* 
against  the  grantor,^  his  heirs, ^  personal  representa- 
tives,' and  beneficiaries.*  A  child,  however,  is  pi-o- 
tected  as  a  creditor  if  wholly  unprovided  for,^  just  as 
tlie  wife  would  be  herself  if  the  conveyance  wore  to  a 
stranger.!"  The  time  at  wliicli  the  right  of  ac:ion  arose, 
whetlier  before  or  after  the  execution  of  the  transfer,  is, 
however,  important,  for  tlie  rights  of  tliose  whose  claims 
arose  before  (existing  creditors)  '^  difler  from  the  rights 


171  EIGHTS   OF   CREDITORS.  §  116 

of  those  whose  claims  arose  afterwards   (subsequent 
creditors).i2 

1  Sep.  the  woriiing  of  the  British  statutes,  cited  ante,  ?  114 ; 
Bump  Fraud.  Convey.  5'>1,  ■jii'.i. 

2  Ante,  §  119  ;  post,  Remedie-;,  ??  122-12-1. 

3  Sexton  7'.  Wh"aton,  S  Wh^at.  22T  ;  1  Am.  Lead.  Cas.  17,  42  ;  Kins 
V.  Thorp,  26  Iowa,  28:J ;  Bump  Fraud.  Convey,  pp.  502,  et  s&i. 

4  Ante,  \  110. 

5  Gardner  v.  Orad.y,  .51  Inl.  ISS,  112;  Schuman  v.  Peddicord,  .50 
Md.  ■560,  .51)2  ;  Pluramer  v.  .larman,  41  Md.  fti2,  039  ;  ante,  \  100;  Bump 
Fraud.  Convey.  444. 

6  Peck  V.  Brummagim,  SI  Cil.  440,  44-5  ;  Leonard  v.  Wills,  24  Kan. 
231 ;  Jones  v.  Obenchain,  10  Gi-att.  2.5J,  267  ;  Bump  Fraud.  Convey.  445. 

7  Cushwa,  .5  Md.  44,  .53  ;  Bump  Fraud.  Convey.  445. 

8  Rogers  v.  Fales,  5  Pa.  St.  154, 158  ;  ante,  ?  100. 

9  Crook  s,  .S4  Ohio  St.  610,  61.5.  See  Majors  r.  Everton,  89  III.  56  ;  .■?! 
Am.  Rep.  65  ;  Honler,  23  Kan.  391.  As  to  father's  duty  to  support 
child,  see  Stewart  M.  &  D.  JJ  404-107. 

10  Stewart  M.  &  L.  §  381. 

11  Post,  \  116. 

12  Post,  2  116. 

\  116.  Rights  of  existing  creditors.  —  If  a  debtor  trans- 
fers his  property  for  adequate,'  valuable  consideration, ^ 
his  creditors  cannot  complain  unless  his  actual  inten- 
tion in  making  the  transfer  was  to  defeat  or  prejudice 
their  rights,^  and  was  shared  in  by  his  grantee.*  Still, 
in  the  absence  of  statute,^  a  mere  preference  of  a  bona 
fide  creditor  is  lawful,  irrespective  of  intent,^  and  even 
though  the  debtor  divests  himself  of  all  his  property.^ 
But  where  the  transfer  is  voluntary,^  the  law  raises  in 
favor  of  existing  creditors  a  presumption  of  fraudulent 
intent,^  which,  in  some  old  cases  and  oven  now  in  some 
States,  is  irrespective  of  the  amounts  of  indebtedness, 
of  the  debtor's  means,  and  of  the  property  transferred, 
conclusive  ;^*  but  which,  by  the  great  weight  of  author- 
ity, may  be  rebutted  by  showing  the  purity  of  the 
grantor's  intent  and  the  reasonableness  of  the  pro- 
vision." The  rule  as  stated  by  the  Suiireme  Court  of 
the  United  States  reads :  "  The  ancient  rule  that  a  vol- 


g   116  RIGHTS   OF   CREDITORS.  172 

untary  postnuptial  settlement  can  be  avoided  if  there 
was  some  indebtedness  existing  has  been  relaxed,  and 
the  rule  generally  adopted  in  this  country  at  the  pres- 
ent tune  (1873)  will  uphold  it  if  it  be  reasonable,  not 
disproportionate  to  the  husband's  means,  and  clear  of 
any  intent  actual  or  constructive  to  defraud  credit- 
ors ;  "  ^2  and  this  rule  is  generally  adopted,'*  even  where 
a  statute  expresi^ly  provides  that  a  transfer  from  hus- 
band to  wife  "in  prejudice  of  the  rights  of  subsisting 
creditors"  shall  be  invalid."  A  husband's  love  and 
affection  for  his  wife,  and  a  desire  to  secure  her  sup- 
port, is  ample  reason  for  a  gift  to  her  ;^^  still  his  actual 
intention  is  a  mere  question  of  fact  ;i6  but  whether  the 
gift  is  a  reasonable  one  considering  his  circumstances 
seems  to  be  a  question  of  law.'"  It  is  reasonable  if  his 
debts  are  trifling,!^  or  if  he  retains  enough  to  readily 
pay  them  all ;  '*  but  unreasonable  if  his  debts  are  so 
great  as  to  embarrass  him,™  or  if  he  is  insolvent,^!  or 
if  tlie  gift  leaves  him  insolvent,^^  or  if  he  denudes  him- 
self of  all  his  property,^*  or  if  the  property  he  conveys 
is  easily  accessible  to  creditors,  while  that  Avhich  he  re- 
tains, though  ample  in  amount,  is  inaccessible  to  them.'^' 

1  Ante,  I  106. 

2  Ante,  ??  1(M-10S. 

3  AshmeaU  v.  Kean,  13  Pa.  St.  TAi,  K7,  5SS  ;  ante,  H  107,  HI. 

4  Prewit  v.  Wilson,  105  U.  S.  2J,  23,  21 ;  ante,  §  111. 

5  .Statutes  often  provide  against  preferences :  See,  for  example 
Md.  Acts  1882,  p.  268,  i  23. 

6  Sanford  v.  Wheeler,  13  Conn.  165,  168  ;  33  Am.  Dec.  389  ;  Si.sson 
?'.  Roath,  30  Conn.  15, 17  ;  Sedgwick  r.  Tucker,  !K)  Ind.  271,  277  ;  R;uidaU 
r.  Lunt,  51  Me.  246,  252  ;  Crane  v.  Barkdoll,  5!)  Md.  5:{4,  535  ;  Jlavfield  )•. 
Kiludur,  31  M(i.  2111,  211  ;  Jordan  v.  White,  :«  Mich.  253  :  Kaii'fnuui  v. 
\\'hitiii'v,  .VI  Jliss.  lii:i,  108  ;  Casson  )•.  Murray,  15  Mo.  37s,  3sl  ;  ( 'ovan- 
liovun  ('.  Hurt,  21  I'a.  .St.  J95,  500  ;  Ashniead  (;.  Kean,  13  Pa.  !>t.  o^l,  .585, 
687  ;  ante,  I  45. 

7  Casson  v.  Murray,  15  Mo.  378,  381. 

8  Ante,  ??  104-108. 

9  See  Hapgood  v.  Fisher,  34  Me.  407,  409  ;  .56  Am.  Dec.  663';  Clarke 
V.  McGeihan,  25  N.  J.  Eq.  423,  424  ;  Leavitt,  47  N.  H.  329,  .3:«  ;  Wool- 
ston,  51  Pa.  St.  452,  4.56  ;  Reynolds  »>.  Sansford,  16  Te.x.  286,  291  ;  Bank 
V.  Patton,  1  Rob.  (Va.)  .500,  .527  ;  Wilson  v.  Buchanan,  7  G-.itt.  334,  ?A0  ; 
cases  infra:  ante,  H  lO'J,  112. 


173  EIGHTS   OF   CREDITORS.  2  116 

10  Rearte  V.  Livingston,  3  Johns.  Ch.  481,  492,  500  ;  Annin,  24  N.  J. 
Eq.  181,  191,  194.  See  notes  to  Sexton  v.  Wheaton,  8  Wheat.  229  ;  1  Am. 
Lead.  Ca.s.  17  ;  Castillo  v.  Thompson,  9  Ala.  9:i7,  94.5  ;  Bogarcl  v.  Gani- 
lev,  4  Smedes  &  M.  302,  310  ;  Davidson  v.  Graves,  Riley  Ch.  219,  234  ; 
Cordery  v.  Zealy,  2  BaU.  206,  208. 

11  Hapgood  V.  Fisher,  34  Me.  407,  409  ;  56  Am.  Dec.  663  ;  cases  infra, 
notes  12,  13. 

12  Kehr  v.  Smith,  20  Wall.  31,  35. 

13  Sexton  v.  Whoaton,  8  Wheat.  229  ;  1  Am.  Lead.  Cas.  17,  cases 
collected  ;  Jenkvn  r.  Vaughan,  3  Drew.  419,  424  ;  Turnlev  )).  Hooper. 
2  Jur.  N.  S.  1081,  1083  ;  Wakeiield  v.  Gibbon,  26  L.  J.  Eq.  505,  508  ;  Kid- 
ney V.  Coussmaker,  12  Ves.  136,148;  French,  6  DeGex  M.  &  G.  100; 
Clark  V.  Killian,  103  U.  S.  766,  769  ;  Jones  v.  Clifton,  101  U.  S.  225,  22.S  ; 
Kesner  v.  Trigg,  98  U.  S.  .50  ;  Seitz  v.  Mitchell,  94  U.  S.  580,  582  ;  Jack- 
■son,  91  U.  S.  142,  145  ;  Llovd  v.  Fulton,  91  U.  S.  479,  486  ;  Picquet  v. 
Swan,  4  Mason,  444,  451;  Pinkston  v.  McLemore,  31  Ala.  308,  .314; 
Dodd  V.  McGraw,  3  Eng.  84, 105  ;  Smith  v.  Yell,  3  Eiig.  470, 475  ;  Salmon 
r.  Bennett,  1  Conn.  525  ;  1  Am.  Lead.  Cas.  31 ;  7  Am.  Dec.  237  ;  Abbe  v. 
Newton,  19  Conn.  20,  27  ;  Clayton  v.  Brown,  17  Ga.  217, 220  ;  Patrick,  77 
111.  555,  561 ;  Moritz  v.  Hoffman,  .35  111.  5-53  ;  Lvne  v.  Bank,  5  Marsh. 
J.  J.  545,  554;  Haskell  v.  Bakewell,  10  Mon.  B.  206,  209;  Trimble  v. 
Ratcliflf,  9  Mon.  B.  511,  .514;  Duhme  v.  Young,  3  Bush,  .343,  349,  351; 
Enders  v.  Williams,  1  Met.  (Kv.)  346,  351 ;  Hapgood  v.  Fisher,  34  Me. 
407,  40:) ;  56  Am.  Dec.  663  ;  Warner  v.  Dove,  33  Md.  579,  586,  .587  ;  Miller 
V.  Johnson,  27  Md.  6  ;  Kipp  v.  Hanna,  2  Blaii<l,  26,  33  ;  Gassett  v.  Grout, 
4  Met.  486,  488 ;  Herclifeldt  v.  George,  6  Mich.  456,  466 ;  Woodson  v. 
Pool,  19  Mo.  340,  .344  ;  Pomeroy  v.  Bailev,  43  N.  H.  118,  120-1-22  ;  Smith 
V.  Lowell,  6  N.  H.  67,  69  ;  Babcock  v.  Ec'kler,  24  N.  Y.  623,  628  ;  Wicher 
r.  Clarke,  8  Paige,  161,  165  ;  Warlick  v.  White,  86  N.  C.  139  ;  41  Am. 
Rep.  453  ;  Smith  v.  Reavis,  7  Irod.  :i4l,.343  ;  Brice  v.  Mver.s,5  Ohio,  121, 
125;  Miller  v.  Wilson,  18  Ohio,  lOs,  114;  Nippes,  75  Pa.  St.  4?2,  475; 
Woolston,  51  Pa.  Sti  451,  456;  Tripner  v.  Abrahams,  47  Pa.  St.  220; 
Posten,  4  Whart.  27,  42  ;  Miller  v.  Pearce,  6  W^atts,  &  S.  97,  401  ;  Banks 
V.  Brown,  2  Hill  Ch.  5.5S,  .566  ;  30  Am.  Dec.  .380 ;  Izard,  1  Bail.  Ch.  228, 
2.37  ;  Burkev  ?'.  Self,  4  Sneed,  121,  124  ;  Wilson  v.  Buchanan,  7  Gratt. 
.334,  .310  ;  Huston  v.  Cantrill,  U  Leigh,  137,  1.59  ;  Com.  v.  Stickles,  15  Vt. 
252,  257  ;  Rose  11.  Brown,  11  W.  Va.  122, 13.5. 

14  Warner  v.  Dove,  33  Md.  .579,  586,587  ;  cases  ante,  ?  114,  n.  1.3. 

15  Enders  v.  Williams,  1  Met.  (Ky.)  346,  .351  ;  ante,  ?  10.5.  Compare 
ante,  i  87. 

16  Hapgooi  V.  Fisher,  31  Me.  407,  409  ;  56  Am.  Dec.  663  ;  Casson  r. 
Murray,  15  Mo.  278,  383  ;  Pomeroy  v.  Bailey,  43  N.  H.  118, 122  ;  ante, 
?109- 

17  Warner  v.  Dove,  33  Md.  579,  .586,  587  ;  ante,  U  109. 114. 

18  Smith  V.  Reavis,  7  Ired.  .311,  343. 

19  H.ipgood  V.  Fisher,  .34  Me.  407,  40T  ;  .56  Am.  Dec.  663  ;  Smith  v. 
Reavis,  7  Ired.  341,  'MS  ;  Secor  v.  Souder,  95  Ind.  95, 100. 

20  Wilson  V.  Buchanan,  7  Gratt.  334,  .340. 

21  Bank  v.  Patton,  1  Rob.  rVa.)  .500,  .527. 

22  Izard,  1  Bail.  Ch.  228,  237. 

23  Coates  v.  Gerlach,  44  Pa.  St.  43,41 ;  see  Alexander,  1  Low.  470, 
474  ;  Ware  v.  Gardner,  Law  R.  7  Eq.  317,  321  ;  Horn  v.  Ross,  20  (ia.  210, 
223  ;  Clayton  v.  Brown,  30  Ga.  490,  495  ;  Wilder  v.  Brooks,  10  Minn.  50, 
.56  ;  Peigne  v.  Snovvden,  1  Desaus.  Eq.  592  ;  Com.  r.  Stickles,  15  Vt.  2.52, 
257. 

24  BuUett  V.  Worthington,  3  Md.  Ch.  09  ;  Annin,  24  X.  J.  Eq.  185, 194. 


§117 


RiaHTS  or  CREDITORS.  174 


I  117.  Eights  of  subsequent  creditors. — A  settlement 
is  valid  as  against  those  who  become  creditors  after  it 
is  made/  unless  there  is  an  actual  intent  to  defraud 
them  ;  '^  and  if  the  settlement  is  on  valuable  considera- 
tion,^' unless  the  intent  is  shared  in  by  the  grantee.* 
Transferring  i^roiierty  with  the  intention  of  thus  with- 
drawing it  from  the  operation  of  debts  about  to  be 
assumed  is  fraua  in  fact,^  and  the  transfer  of  all  one's 
property  is  strong  evidence  of  such  fraud.^  A  subse- 
quent creditor  cannot  attack  a  settlement  on  the  ground 
that  it  defrauds  existing  creditors  ;  ^  but  if  a  settlement 
is  set  aside  by  existing  creditors,  subsequent  creditors 
may  come  in  pari  passu  with  them.^ 

1  Sexton  II.  Wheaton,  8  Wheat.  223  ;  1  Am.  Lead.  Cas.  17,  2.'),  40  ; 
cases  infra,  n.  2. 

2  Sexton  r.  Wheaton,  supra;  Holmes  v.  Penney,  3  Kay  &  J.  102  ; 
Mattingly  v.  Nye,  8  Wall.  370;  Williams  v.  Avery,  38  Ala.  115.  118; 
Pinkston  »•.  McLemore,  31  Ala.  308,  311 ;  Thomas  v.  Degratlenreid,  17 
Ala.  vm,  01 1  ;  KUiott  r.  Home,  10  Ala.  3-18,  3.51  ;  Clayton  r.  Brown,  'M 
Ga.  4'M,  4[)d  ;  Place  v.  Rhein,  7  Bush.  585  ;  Lyne  v.  Bunk,  5  Marsh.  J.J. 
545,  5.54  ;  Miller,  23  Me.  22,  24  ;  3!)  Am.  Dec.  51)7  ;  Clark  !'.  French,  23 
Me.  221 ;  39  Am.  Dec.  618  ;  Niller  v.  Johnson,  27  Md.  6,  11 ;  Kipp  v. 
Hanna,  2  Bland.  26,  34  ;  Bennett  v.  Bedford,  11  Mass.  421,  423  ;  Beach 
V.  White,  Walk.  Ch.  495;  Teller  ?•.  Bishop,  8  Minn.  226;  Bogard  v. 
Gawlev,  4  Smedes  &  M.  302,  310  ;  Vertner  v.  Humphrevs,  14  bmedes 
Jt  M.  l':0  ;  I'awlev,  42  Mo.  21)1,. 303  ;  Carson  v.  Murray,  15  Mo.  378,  381  ; 
CarlisU'  r.  Ricli,  8  N.  II.  44,  50  ;  Robinson  r.  Holt,  3>j  N.  H.  3.57  ;  Leav- 
itt,  47  N.  H.  3:;i» ;  Caswell  r.  Hill,  47  N.  H.  407  ;  t  arpenter,  27  X.  J.  Eq. 
502,  503  ;  Phillips  v  Wooster  36  N.  Y.  412,  414  ;  Cas.'  r.  I'helps,  39  N.  Y. 
164;  Smith  v.  Reavis,  7  Ired.  -M,  343;  Webb  v.  Ruir. !)  Ohio  St.  430  ; 
Woolston,  57  Pa.  St.  4.52,  45(i ;  Greenfield,  14  Pa.  St.  4^:i,  502  ;  Blake  v. 
Jones,  1  Bail.  Eq.  142,  143;  21  Am.  Doc.  530;  Jenkins  v.  Clement,  1 
Harp.  Ch.  72  ;  Allen  v.  Walt,  9  Heisk.  242  ;  Johnston  c.  Zane,  11  Gratt. 
552;  Hutchinson  r.  Kelley,  1  Rob.  (Va.)  12.5,  134  ;  Rose  v.  Brown,  11 
W.  Va.  122,  134 ;  Pike  v.  MUes,  23  Wis.  1G4,  169. 

3  Ante,  H  105,  107. 

4  Mogniac  v.  Thompson,  7  Peters,  348,  393  ;  ante,  ?  111. 

5  Pawley,  42  Mo.  291,  .303  ;  ante,  I  109. 

6  Martin  v.  Oliver,  9  Humph.  501,  565,  56G  ;  49  Am.  Dec.  717  ;  ante, 
?  112. 

7  Lynch  v.  Raleigh,  3  Ind.  273,  275  ;  post,  ?  124. 

8  See  Elliott  ?'.  Home,  10  .\la.  348,  3.52  ;  Lewis  v.  Love,  2  Mon.  B. 
345,  317  ;  38  Am.  Dec.  lOl  ;  Edwards  r.  <  oleman,  2  Bibb.  204,  205  ;  l>ark- 
nian  v.  Welsh,  19  I'ick.  221.  2:!7  ;  .MrConihe  v.  Sawver,  12  X.  H.  397, 
403  ;  Hoke  v.  Hender.son,  3  Dev.  12,  14  ;  4  Dev.  12,  14  ;  25  Am.  Dec.  677  ; 
Hester  v.  Wilkinson,  6  Humph.  215,  218  ;  post,  i  124. 


175        POSSESSION   OF   HUSBAND   AND   WIFE.  g§' 1 18-118  & 

I  118-  Property  exempt  from  creditor's  rights.  —  Any 
property  of  a  husband  personal/  or  real,'^  which  his 
creditors  could  not  proceed  against,^  he  may  as  against 
them  settle  upon  his  wife  ^  Thus,  there  is  no  fraud  in 
law  or  in  fact,^  in  a  conveyance  by  him  to  her  of  the 
homestead;^  or  of  her  earnings,' or  cattle^  if  they  are 
exempt ;  or  of  her  choses  in  action,^  whicli  are  not  his 
till  reduced  to  possession, •'^  and  which  his  creditors 
cannot  compel  him  to  so  reduce. ^^ 

1  Robb  V.  Brewer,  70  Iowa,  539,  542. 

2  Premo  v.  Hewitt,  55  Vt.  382,  366. 

3  Bout,  Yi  122-124. 

4  Jones  I'.  Branclt,  6!^  Iowa,  332,  344 ;  Delashmut  v.  Trau,  44  Iowa, 
613,  616  ;  Robb  (■  Brewer,  70  Iowa,  o3i),  .>42  :  15  The  Reporter,  648,  649  ; 
IB  Cent.  L.  J.  356 ;  Peterson  v.  Mulford,  36  N.  J.  L.  481.  4.'S!)  ;  Woodworth 
I-.  Sweet,  51  N.  V.  8,  10;  .Smethurst  v.  Thurston,  Brightly,  127,  129; 
Bobenets,  36  Pa.  St.  174,  17«,  187  ;  Premo  v.  Hewitt,  55  Vt.  362,  367  ; 
Leavitt  !'.  Jones,  54  Vt.  42:{,  427  ;  41  Am.  Rep.  849  ;  Druitzer  v.  Bell,  11 
Wis.  114,  118  ;  Pilie  v.  Miles,  23  Wis.  164,  168. 

5  Ante,  ?  103. 

6  Jones  v.  Brant,  69  Iowa  .332,  34-1  ;  Delashmut  ?•.  Trau,  44  Iowa, 
613,  CKi;  Premo  v.  Hewitt,  55  Vt.  36-',  366  ;  Piice  v.  Miles,  23  Wis.  164, 
16> ;  2Mst.,  i  314. 

7  Robb  V.  Brewer,  60  Iowa,  .531,  S42  ;  Premo  v.  Hewitt,  55  Vt.  362, 
366.    See  Peterson  v.  Mulford,  36  N.  J.  L.  481.  489. 

8  Leavitt  v.  Jones,  54  Vt.  423,  427  ;  41  Am.  Rep.  849. 

9  Peterson  v.  Mulford,  .36  N.  J.  L.  481,  489  ;  Woodworth  v.  Sweet, 
51  N.  Y.  8,  10 ;  Robinett,  36  Pa.  St.  174,  ITS,  187  ;  Smethurst  v.  Thurs- 
ton, Brightly,  127,  129. 

10  I>ost,  I  176. 

11  Post,  I  177. 


Article  VI.  —  Possession  of  Husband   and  Wife. 

I  118  a.  Possession  of  liu.sband  and  wife  generally. 
I  119.    Presumptions  from. 
I  120.    Change  of,  as  delivery. 
I  121.    Retention  of,  as  fraud. 

g  118  a.  Possession  of  husband  and  wife  generally. — 
Three  general  rules  of  tlie  law  relating  to  j)os.session, 
namely  (1)  pos.session  of  chattels  is  prima  facie  proof  of 
ownership ;  (2)  delivery  involves  a  change  of  posses- 


§  118  a        -POSSESSION   OF   HUSBAND  AND   WIFE.  176 

sion  ;  ^  and  (3)  retention  of  jjossession  by  a  grantor  is  a 
badge  of  fraud,  are  peculiarly  difficult  to  apply  to  hus- 
band and  wife.  For,  while  on  the  one  hand,  husband 
and  wife  have  nominally  the  same  home,^and  each  has 
the  right  to  live  with  the  other,^  now  as  at  common 
law ;  *  and  both  of  them  therefore  not  only  actually  use, 
enjoy,  and  possess  the  property  in  and  about  their 
home,'  but  also  incidentally  have  the  right  to  do  so;^ 
on  tlie  other  hand,  now  tliat  married  women's  separate 
property  is  nearly  everywhere  recognized,  the  wife 
may,  as  well  as  the  liusband,  be  the  actual  of  the  pro}}- 
erty  so  used,  enjoyed,  and  possessed,  as  her  equitable  ^ 
or  as  her  statutory'"  separate  estate.  Whether  any 
presumption  arises  as  to  ownership  of  property  so  pos- 
sessed;" whether  there  canine  delivery  between  hus- 
band and  wife  of  such  property,'^  and  whether  the 
continued  use  and  enjoyment  of  such  property  by  the 
grantor  after  such  transfer  is  evidence  of  fraud,'^  are 
cxuestions  which  must  be  discussed. 

1  1  Greenl.  Evld.  ?  »J. 

2  Benj.  Sales,  ?  675. 

S    Bump.  Fraud.  Convey,  ch.  5. 

4  Ante,  U  -^h  59,  60. 

5  Anon.  Deane  <fe  S.  295,  298,  .300;  Price,  2  Fost.  &  F.  263,  264; 
Barnes  v.  AUen,  30  Barb.  66:!,  66S :  Westlake,  34  Ohio  St.  621,  628 ;  32 
Am.  Rep.  397 ;  Ximines  v.  Smitti,  39  Tex.  49,  52 ;  .Stewart  M.  &  D. 
I  175  ;  ante,  U  59,  60. 

6  Cole  V.  Van  Riper,  44  111.  .53,  63  ;  .Snyder  v.  People,  26  Mich.  lOfi, 
lOS,  110  ;  12  Am.  Rep.  ;502  ;  Walker  v.  Reamy,  36  Pa.  St.  410,  414. 

7  Larkin  v.  McMullin,  49  Pa.  St.  29,  34,  .%5. 

8  Holcorab  r.  People's  Bank,  92  Pa.  St.  .3.38,  .343 ;  Walker  r. 
Reamy,  36  Pti.  St.  410,  414.  See  Lee  r\  Mathews,  10  Ala.  R'?2,  687  ;  Bell, 
.37  Ala.  f>m,  .542  ;  Cole  ?'.  Van  Riper,  44  111.  5S,  63  ;  .Schindel,  12  Md.  lOS, 
121,  291,  313  ;  Com.  v.  Hartwelt,  3  Gray,  450, 452  ;  Snyder  v.  People,  26 
Mich.  106, 109. 

9  Discussed,  post,  U  197-216. 

10  Discussed  post,  §?  217-243. 

11  Hill )'.  Chambers,  30  Mich.  422, 428 ;  post,  ?  119. 

12  Wheeler,  43  Conn.  503,  509 ;  post,  ?  120. 

13  Moreland  v.  Myall,  14  Bush,  474,  477  ;  post,  I  121. 


177  POSSESSION   OF   HUSBAXD   AND   WIFE:  ?  119 

\  119.  Presumption  as  to  ownersMp  of  property  in  the 
possession  of  husband  and  wife.  —  At  common  law  hus- 
band and  wife  were  one ; '  the  wife's  existence  was 
merged  in  that  of  her  husband  ;  ^  it  is  even  said  that 
she  was  civilly  dead ;  ^  all  her  present  property  rights 
passed  to  her  husband,  her  personality  absolutely,*  her 
realty  during  coverture  at  least;"  she  had  herself  no 
property  in  possession,*  and  .so  her  possession  was  her 
husband's  possession,'  and  even  money  in  her  pocket 
was  deemed  in  his  actual  possession.^  As  a  result,  the 
possession  of  husband  and  wife  at  common  law  was  the 
possession  of  the  husband,^  and  as  far  as  it  was  evi- 
dence of  title  at  all,  it  was  evidence  of  his  title.^o  Courts 
of  equity,  however,  recognized  the  separate  existence 
of  the  wife,!'  and  at  an  early  date  enforced  settlements 
to  the  sole  and  separate  use  of  a  married  woman  ;  ^'^  thus 
arose  wives'  equitable  separate  estates;"  and  statutes 
have  now  nearly  everywhere  created  statutory  .separate 
estates."  But  although  wives  may  now  own  and  pos- 
sess property  themselves,  and  the  main  ground  for 
the  common  law  rule,  that  possession  of  tlie  wife  is 
possession  of  the  husband,  is  thus  removed,  the  form 
or  shadow  of  the  rule  still  remains,  and  the  presump- 
tion still  exists,  that  all  property  in  or  about  the  family 
matrimonial  home,'"  is  in  the  possession  of  the  husband 
and  is  his ;  '^  and  that  any  business  carried  on  jointly 
by  the  husband  and  wife  is  the  husband's.'"  But  this 
presumption  is  rebuttable;'*  the  equivocal  possession 
of  husband  and  wife  is  the  possession  of  that  one  of 
them  in  whom  the  title  is  ;'»  and  just  as  the  possession 
of  the  wife  is  the  possession  of  the  husband  when  the 
title  is  his,™  so  his  possession  is  her  possession  when 
the  title  is  hers.^i  So  neither  of  them  can  rely  on  the 
mere  fact  of  possession  to  prove  acquisition  of  title 
from  the  other  ;^  the  wfe  not  being  precluded  from 


j!  119  POSSESSION   OF   HUSBAND   AND   WIFE,  178 

asserting  title  even  to  property  which  her  husband  has 
had  taxed  in  his  own  name  with  her  knowledge.^  For, 
the  intimacy  of  the  marriage  relation  renders  exclusive 
possession  well  nigh  impossible, 2*  and  it  is  not  the  pol- 
icy of  the  law  to  interfere  wth  the  mutual  trust  and 
confidence  between  husband  and  wifc.^  Still,  the  pre- 
sumption of  the  husband's  OA\Tiership  does  exist ;  ^^  it 
even  continues  afier  his  death,  so  that  property  held  by 
his  widow,  who  was  also  his  administratrix,  was  pre- 
sumed to  be  held  by  her  in  her  latter  capacity.^^  And 
it  goes  so  far  that  even  when  a  wife  has  bought  prop- 
erty herself  and  in  her  own  name,  the  purchase  money 
paid  is  presumed  to  have  been  her  husband's."'^  This 
indeed  makes  but  little  difference  as  far  as  her  husband 
is  concerned,'^  or  a  stranger,3o  for  as  against  them  a  gift 
from  him  to  her  is  good  and  may  be  inferred  from  cir- 
cumstances ;  ^i  but  as  against  her  husband's  creditors 
(as  when  she  sues  for  taking  her  goods  for  liis  debts)^^ 
she  must  prove  not  only  that  the  purchase  was  made 
for  hersel!",^^  but  also  that  it  was  made  out  of  lier  sepa- 
rate funds  ^t  or  upon  her  separate  credit.''*  And  this 
presuiuption  has  been  recognized  in  a  suit  where  the 
Avife  was  rlofendant,  and  where  the  burden  of  proof  Avas 
held  to  bo  on  lier  creditor,  who  seized  goods  alleged  to 
be  hers,  to  show  tliat  they  were  hers,  and  not  her  hus- 
band's.38  It  has,  however,  been  held  that  the  wife's 
possession  under  a  mortgage  is  prima  facte  evidence 
of  her  title.^^  As  to  real  estate,  it  has  been  lield  that 
when  the  husband  and  wife  Uxe  together  on  tlie  wife's 
farm  tiie  husband  is  pi-esumed  the  tenant,  and  owns 
the  crop  unless  the  wife  proves  tliat  he  farmed  it  as  her 
agent  ;38  but  this  rule  is  in  conflict  with  the  rules,  that 
the  increase  of  separate  property  is  separate  property ,*3 
and  that  the  wife's  separate  property  in  the  possession 
of  the  husband  and  A\ife  is  in  her  possession,^"  and  will 


179  •  POSSESSION    OP   HUSBAND   AND   WIPE.  §  119 

therefore  probably  not  prevail.^^  In  fact  it  is  well  set- 
tled, that  a  husband  may  manage  his  wife's  property 
without  acquiring  any  rights  therein,  or  in  any  way 
rendering  it  liable  for  his  debts.''^  It  seems  that  there 
can  be  no  such  thing  as  "adverse  possession  "  between 
husband  and  wife  while  they  cohabit.*^  Nor  is  posses- 
sion of  a  husband  so  far  possession  of  his  wife  that  he 
can  set  up  her  title  as  against  his  bailor  to  property 
held  by  him  as  bailee.^* 

1  White  V.  Wager,  25  X.  Y.  328,  329  ;  ante,  I  38. 

2  Burleigh  v.  Coffin,  22  N.  H.  ns,  124  ;  53  Am.  Dec.  23G  ,  ante.  ?  38. 

3  O'Farrell  v.  Simplot,  4  Iowa,  381,  383  :  ante,  ?  38. 

4  Cox  r>.  Scott,  9  Baxt.  305,  310  ;  iwst,  ??  1G:}-183. 

5  Mutual  V.  Deale,  18  Md.  28,  47  ;  post,  ?J  141-162. 

6  Com.  V.  Williams,  7  Gray,  337,  3:i8  ;  post,  ?  167. 

7  Bell,  37  Ala.  536,  542  ;  po.?<,  ?  167. 

8  See  Carletnn  v.  Lovejoy,  54  Me.  445,446;  Cox  »•.  Scott,  9  Baxt. 
305,  30!» ;  pout,  i  167. 

9  Topley,  3]  Pa.  St.  328,  32!). 

10  Robinson  v.  Brems,  90  111.  351,  354. 

11  Milner  v.  Freeman,  40  Ark.  62,  68  ;  ante,  §?  38, 42. 

12  2  Story  Eq.  Jur.  §§  1368,  l.'i7S ;  post,  U  197, 198. 

13  nulme  V.  Tenant,  1  White  &  T.  Lead.  Cas.  481,  notes ;  post, 
§t  197-216. 

14  Discussed  post,  ??  217-24.3. 

15  Allen  v.  Eldridge,  1  Colo.  287,  290 ;  Walker  v.  Reamv,  36  Pa.  St. 
410,  416. 

16  Bell,  37  Ala.  .536,  541 ;  Allen  v.  Eldridge,  1  Colo.  287,  290  ;  Huff  v. 
Wright,  39  Ga.  41,  43  ;  Robinson  v.  Brems,  90  111.  3.=>I,  :i54  ;  Kahn  v. 
Wood,  82  111.  219  ;  Reeves  v.  Webster,  71  111.  307  ;  Farrell  v.  Patterson, 
43  111.  52,  57;  Davison  v.  Smith,  20  Iowa,  466;  Com.  v.  Williams,  7 
Grav.  .3.37,338  ;  Hill  v.  f  hambers,  30  Mich.  422,  428  ;  Walker  v.  Reamy, 
36  Pa.  St.  410,  416  ;  Winter  v.  Walter,  37  Pa.  St.  15.5,  162  ;  Rhoads  v. 
Gordon,  .38  Pa.  St.  277,  279;  Topley,  31  Pa.  St.  328,  329;  Nelson  v.  Hol- 
lins,  !)  Baxt.  5.53,  .i.55 ;  Stanton  v.  Kirsoh,  6  Wis.  .334,  341;  Duress  v. 
Horm-ffer,  15  Wis.  195,  1!»7  ;  Wi'vmouth  v.  Chicago,  17  Wis.  5-50,  .551. 
But  see  Whiton  v.  Snyder,  8S  X.  Y.  2i»9. 

17  Brownell  v.  Nixon,  37  111.  197,  205  ;  Mason  v.  Bowles,  117  Mass. 
86,  89  ;  ante,  1 93. 

18  Hill  V.  Chambers,  30  Mich.  422,  428 ;  Mason  v.  Bowles,  117  Mass. 
86,  89. 

19  See  McNeill  v.  Arnold,  17  Ark.  154,  175  ;  Stewart  v.  Ball,  33  Mo. 
154,  156  ;  Scott  V.  Simes,  10  Bosw.  314,  320. 

20  Bell,  .37  Ala.  .5-36,  511  ;  Pope  v.  Tucker,  23  Ga.  4,^,  487  ;  Davidson 
V.  Smith,  20  Iowa,  466  ;  Jordan,  .52  Me.  320,  :521  ;  Carleton  v.  Lovejoy, 
54  Me.  445,  416;  Com.  v.  Williams,  7  Grav,  .337,  3.38  ;  Walker  v.  Reamy, 
36  Pa.  St.  410,  415 ;  Duress  v.  Horneffer,  15  Wis.  195, 197. 


^119  POSSESSION   OF   HUSBAND   AND   WIFE.  130 

21  Lee  v  Mathews,  10  Ala.  682,  687;  Robinson,  44  Ala.  227,  2.T7 ; 
Pinkston  v.  McLemore,  31  Ala.  308,  .^13,  314  ;  McNeill  v.  Arnold,  17 
Ark.  1.54,  175  ;  Pierce  v.  Hasbroiick,  49  111.  24,  27  ;  Hlleman,  85  Ind.  1  ; 
Hanson  v.  Millctt,  55  Me.  184.  181 ;  Hill  v.  Chambers,  o'O  Mich.  422,  428 ; 
McNally  v  Welti.  30  Minn.  203  ;  Scott  v.  Bimes,  10  Bosw.  314,  320  ; 
Lydia  v.  Cowan  2:*  N.  Y.  .505  :  Gicker  v.  Martin,  50  Pa.  St.  138,  140 , 
Nelson  v.  Hollins,  9  Baxt.  553,  555. 

22  Root  )•  Schaffner,  .30  Iowa,  375,  377  ;  White  v.  Zane,  10  Mich.  333, 
335  ,  Lvle,  11  Phila.  64,  65;  B'lchman  v.  Kllllnger,  55  Pa.  St.  414,  417, 
418 ,  Piirvin  v.  Capewell,  45  Pa.  St.  89,  93. 

23  Deck  V.  Smith  12  Neb.  389,  395. 

24  Holcomb  V.  People's  Bank,  92  Pa.  St.  3.38,  .343  ;  ante,  ?  118  a. 

25  See  Cole  v.  Van  Riper,  44  III.  .58,  63;  Snvder  v.  People,  26  Mich. 
106, 109 ;  12  Am.  Dec.  302  ;  Walker  v.  Reamy,  .36  Pa.  St.  410,  414. 

26  See  also  Alverson  v.  Jones,  10  Cal.  9  ;  Smith  r.  Hewett,  13  Iowa. 
94,  Eldridge  v  Preble,  34  Me.  14S;  Smith  r.  Henrv,  .35  Miss.  .3(i  i ; 
Gault  V  Siffin,  44  Pa.  St.  .307  ;  Bear,  33  Pa.  St.  525  ;  Gamber,  18  Pa.  St. 
363 ,  Goodyear  v.  Rumbaugh,  13  Pa.  St.  4S0.  But  see  Johnson  v. 
Runyon,  21  Ind.  11.5. 

27  Bradshaw  v.  Mayfleld.'  18  Tex.  21,  27. 

28  Seitz  V.  Mitchell,  94  U.  S.  .580,  582  ;  Price  r.  Sanchez,  8  Fla.  136, 
142,  Huff  r.  Wright,  3!)  Ga.  41,  43  ;  F.irrell  r.  Patterson,  43  111.  52,  59 
Glann  v   Younglove,  27  Barb.  4*^0,  481  ;  Winter  v.  Walter,  37  Pa.  St. 
155, 161  ;  .\urand  v.  Schaffer,  43  Pa.  St.  si'il,  3')4  ;  Rhoads  v.  Gordon,  .38 
Pa.  St.  277.  279 ;  Rose  v.  Brown,  11  W.  Va.  122,  136.     Contra,  Saunders 

V  Garrett  .33  Ala.  4-54,  456  ;  Kluender  r.  Lvnch,4  Keves,  301,  363  ;  StoU 

V  Fulton, '.38  N.  J.  L.  430,  437,  438.    See  post,  U  I-O,  132. 

29  See  Jackson,  91  XT.  S.  122,  125;  Andrews  v.  Oxley,  38  Iowa,  578, 
580  ;  Bent,  44  Vt.  555,  559. 

30  Weymouth  v.  Chicago,  17  Wis.  5.50,  .551.  See  Faddis  v.  Wool- 
lomes,  lOKan.  .56  ;  Miller  v.  Bannister,  103  Mass.  283  ;  Peters  v.  Fow- 
ler, 41  Barb.  467,  468. 

31  Jennings  v.  Da\is,  31  Conn.  134,  ,142 ;.  Manny  i>.  Rixford,  44  III. 
121,  133  ;  Skillman,  13  N.  J.  Etj.  403,  407  ;  Bradshaw  v.  Mavfleld,  18 
Tex  21,25;  post,  I  127. 

32  Duress  v.  Horneffer,  15  Wis.  195,  1C7. 

33  See  Marshall  r.  Curtwell,  Law  R.  20  Eq.  .328,  331 ;  Grain  v.  Ship- 
man.  45  Conn.  572,  583;  Wornjlev,  98  111. -.544 ;  Dunn  v.  Hornbeck,  7 
Hun,  623  630  ;  Bent,  44  Vt.  5.55,  559. 

34  Erdman  v.  Rosenthal,  60  Md.  312,  316  ,  Glann  j>.  Younglove,  27 
Barb.  4'<0,  4Si ;  Curry  r.  Bott,  .53  Pa.  St.  400,  403.  See  also  Blumer  !'. 
PoUok.  1-*  Fla.  7i)7  ;  Farrell  v.  Patterson,  43  111.  .52,  .53  ;  Keener  r. 
Good,  21  Pa.  St.  313;  Rhoads  ?t.  Gordon,  .38  P.a.  St.  277,  279;  Stanton 
V.  Kirsoh,  6  Wis.  3:»,  341 ;  Duress  v.  Horneffer,  15  Wis.  195,  197. 

35  Erdman  v.  Rosenthal,  60  Md.  312,  316;  Glann  v.  Younglove,  27 
Barb.  480,  4S3. 

36  Crane  v.  Seymour,  3  Md.  Ch.  483,  486. 

37  Morrison  v.  Koch,  32  Wis.  2-54,  2.59. 

.38  Langford  v.  Grierson,  5  111.  App.  .362,  366.  But  see  Stout  v.  Perrv, 
70  Ind.  .50!,  504  ;  Bowen  v.  Arnstlen,  47  Vt.  .563,  573. 

39  Bongard  v.  Core,  82  III.  19,  21 ;  post,  ??  203,  227. 

40  Nelson  v.  Hollins,  9  Baxt.  553,  555  ;  supra,  n.  21. 


181  POSSESSION   OF  HUSBAND  AND  WIFE.  §  120 

41  Stout  V.  Perrv,  70  Inrt.  501,  504  ;  Russell  v.  liOng,  52  Iowa,  250, 
252  ;  DeBlane  v.  Lynch,  2;!  Tex.  25,  ?7. 

42  Millor  v.  VecV,  13  W.  Va.  75,  7!)-!)7;  Cooper  v.  Ham,  49  Ind.  393, 
400-116  ;  ante,  I  87. 

43  Bell,  37  Ala.  536,  542  ;  Veal  v.  Robinson,  70  Go..  809,  817. 

44  Pulliam  v.  Burlingame,  18  Cent.  L.  J.  314,  315. 

I  120.  Change  of  possession  necessary  to  constitute  de- 
livery between  husband  and  wife.  —  In  the  case  of  a  sale  at 
chattels  the  property  may  pass  without  a  change  of 
possession,  delivery  being  part  of  the  obligation  of  the 
vendor;^  but  a  gift  is  of  no  effect  without  deli  very,''' ' 
because  until  delivery  it  is  an  unexecuted  contract,  and  ■ 
being  without  consideration  is  not  enforcible  even  ih' 
equity.^  By  delivery  is  meant  a  change  of  possession 
intended  to  accompany  a  change  of  property.*  Gifts 
■  between  husband  and  Avife  are  by  no  means  uncom- 
mon, and  are  valid  in  equity  if  not  at  law.^  But  the 
donor's  intention  to  divest  himself  or  herself  of  the 
property,  and  the  carrying  out  of  that  intention  by 
delivery,  must  be  clearly  proved  hj  the  donee,  wife,* 
'  or  hui^band,^  as  the  case  inay  be.  And  since  husband 
and  wife  are  about  equally  in  possession  of  property  in 
•  and  about  their  common  home,^  and  neither  can  rely 
on  such  equivocal  possession  to  prove  title  as  against 
the  other,9  actual  delivery  between  husband  and  wife 
is  most  difficult  to  provCj^o  and  the  only  safe  way  of 
perfecting  a  gift  between  them  is  by  constructive  de- 
livery through  a  formal  instrument,  such  as  a  bill  of 
sale."  To  illustrate :  If  a  husband  says  to  his  wife, 
"  this  wagon  is  yours,"  referring  to  a  wagon  he  is  using, 
and  goes  on  using  it  as  before,  the  wife  cannot  claim  it 
even  as  against  hitn  ;  '^  but  if  he  says  to  his  wife  in  buy- 
ing a  horse,  "I  am  buying  this  horse  for  you  —  it  is 
yours,"  and  it  is  then  delivered  by  the  vendor  to  him 
and  put  in  his  stable,  he  receives  and  keeps  it  merely 
as  her  agent  —  it  is  hers."    The  above  reasoning  does 

H.  &  W,  -16. 


I  121  POSSESSION   OF   HUSBAND   AND   WIFE.  182 

not,  however,  apply  to  mere  personal  effects  or  orna- 
ments used  by  the  husband  or  \Mfe,'*  or  to  such  otlier 
property  as  the  one  or  the  other  uses  or  enjoys  alone.'^ 

1  Benj.  Sales,  ?§  67-4,  et  seq. 

2  Dilts  r.  Stevenson,  17  N.  J.  Kq.  407,  4n,  414  ;  Woodruff  v.  Chirk, 
42  N.  J.  L.  198,  202  ;  Bradshaw  v.  MayfieM,  18  Tex.  21,  25. 

3  Breton  v.  Woollven,  Law  K.  17  Oil.  Div.  412,  -121;  C'olteeii  r. 
Missing,  1  Madd.  176,  183  ;  Fowler  r.  Trebein,  Itt  Ohio  St.  493,  497. 

4  See  1  Pars  Cont.  234;  2  Schjul.  Pers.  Prop.  71  ;  Arniitage  v. 
Mace,  48  N.  Y.  Sup.r.  107  ;  Caldwell  v.  Wilson,  2  Spear,  T-i. 

5  Eddins  v.  Buck,  23  Ark,  Tfin,  509 ;  Peck  v.  Bruinmuglm,  31  Cal. 
440,  446;  UnderhiU  v.  Morgan,  33  Conn.  105, 107;  Manny  v.  Rl.\ford,  44 
111.  129,  133 ;  Clawson,  25  Ind.  229,  2:i0 ;  Chew,  38  Iowa,  405,  406 ; 
Thomas  v.  Harkness,  13  Bush,  23,  27  ;  Latimer  )•.  Glenn,  2  Bush,  5.3.5, 
543;  Paschall  v.  Hall,  5  Jones  Eq.  108,  110  ;  Seymour  )'.  Fellows,  77 
N.  Y.  178, 179;  Coates  v.  Gerlaeh,  44  Pa.  St.  43,  45;  Bradshaw  v  May- 
field,  18  Tex.  21,  26  ;  Fox  v.  Jones,  1  W.  Va.  205,  217 ;  imst,  i  127. 

6  Breton  v.  Woolven,  Law  R.  17  Ch.  DIv.  41G,  421  ;  Colteen  r. 
Missing,  1  Madd.  176,  183 :  Pierce,  7  Hiss.  420,  427  ;  Machen,  38  Ala.  .364, 
36S;  Wheeler,  43  Conn.  503,  509;  Woodson  v.  Pool,  19  Mo.  340,  345; 
Slvillman,  13  N.  J.  Eq.  403,  407  ;  Dilts  v.  Stevenson,  17  X.  J.  Eq.  407, 
41.3,  414  ;  WoodrulT  v.  Clark,  42  X.  J.  L.  19S,  202  ;  Neufville  v.  Thom- 
son, 3  Edw.  Ch.  92,  94;  Pascliall  v.  Hali,  5  Jones  Eq.  108,  109,  112; 
Campbell,  80  Pa.  St.  298,  306  ;  Wade  v.  Cantrell,  1  Head,  :U6,  347. 

7  Pierce,  7  Biss.  426, 4'27 ;  Patton,  75  111.  446,  451. 

8  Larkin  v.  McMullln,  49  Pa.  St.  34,  35;  Holconib  v.  Peoples,  92 
Pa.  St.  338,  343 ;  aJite,  U  118  a,  119. 

9  White  V.  Zane,  10  Mich.  .3.33,  3.35  ;  Allen  v.  Miles,  36  Mis.s.  640,  644; 
Bachman  v.  Killinger,  55  Pa.  St.  414,  417,  418. 

10  Pierce,  7  Biss.  426,  428. 

11  Cox,  Law  R.  1  Ch.  Div.  302,  30fi ;  Enders  v.  Williams,  I  Met. 
(Ky.)  :«6,  3.50  ;  Hutehins  v.  Dixon,  11  Md.  29,  40. 

12  Dilts  t'.  Stevenson,  17  X.  J.  Eq.  407,  413. 

13  Wheeler,  43  Conn.  503,  509. 

14  Pierce,  7  Biss.  426,  427 ;  Gentry  v.  McReynolds,  12  Mo.  535  ;  Rog- 
ers V.  Fales,  5  Pa.  St.  154,  158. 

15  See  Pinkston  v.  McLemore,  31  Ala.  308,  313, 314. 

§  121.  Retention  of  possession  as  fraud.  —  As  already 
shown,  a  wife  must  clearly  prove  her  title  to  any  prop- 
erty in  or  about  the  family  home,  or  apparently  in  the 
husband's  possession ;  i  and  as  again.st  her  husband's 
creditors  or  bona  fide  purchasers  for  value,  she  must 
sliow  that  she  did  not  acquire  sucli  property  directly  or 
indirectly  from  him;^  or,  if  she  did  acquire  it  from 
him,  tliat  he  received  a  valuable,^  and  indeed  adequate 


183  POSSESSION   OF   HUSBAND   AND   WIFE.  g  121 

consideration  therefor ;  *  or  that  it  was  a  reasonable  gift, 
considering  his  means  ;^  i.  e.,  she  must  show  the 
absence  of  constructive  fraud  or  fraud  in  law.^  But  in 
the  case  of  conveyances  by  a  debtor,  the  general  rule  is 
that  if  after  the  conveyance  is  made,  he  retains  posses- 
sion of  the  property  conveyed,  such  conduct  is  evidence 
of  an  actual  intent  to  defraud  his  creditors  [fraud  in  fo,ct) 
and  must  be  explained  ;'  and  the  question  is,  does  this 
rule  apply  to  husband  and  wife  ?  It  is  said  that  a  hus- 
band's possession  of  his  wife's  property  is  not  in  itself 
evidence  of  fraud,^  because  he  has  the  right  growing 
out  of  the  right  of  cohabitation  to  use  and  possess  her 
property  in  their  homo  •,^  but  this  is  not  true  if  his  pos- 
session is  not  consistent  with  the  purpose  for  wliich  the 
property  was  given  to,  or  purchased  by,  her.'"  And 
although  she  may,  by  allowing  him  to  deal  with  her 
property  as  owner,  make  him  her  agent  with  respect 
thereto,  and  be  bound  by  his  acts,"  it  is  not  a  fraud, 
and  she  is  not  estopped  by  her  silence  in  its  presence 
when  he  asserts  his  title  to  her  cliattels,'-  at  least  where 
the  doctrine  of  coercion  of  wife  by  husband  is  not  ex- 
ploded." But  some  authorities  hold,  that,  if  a  husband, 
with  his  wife's  consent,  retains  possession  of  property 
which  he  liad  settled  on  her,  and  is  thus  enabled  to  get 
credit,  she  cannot  assert  her  title;"  certainly  slie  can- 
not if  she  allows  liim  to  retain  possession  for  the  pur- 
pose of  deceiving  his  creditors.'^  And  so,  if  he  should 
give  her  cliattels  for  which  slie  would  have  no  use,  but 
which  he  would  have  to  continue  to  use  in  his  business, 
as  if  a  laborer  should  give  his  wife  his  cart,  horse,  and 
tools, '^  certainly  some  special  circumstances  would  have 
to  be  proved  to  rebut  the  presumption  that  he  meant  to 
secure  himself  against  his  creditors.'^  In  some  States 
statutes  expressly  provide  that  a  schedule  of  the  separate 
property  of  married  women  shall  be  filed ;  '*  and  that 


I  121  POSSESSION   OF   HUSBAND   AND   WIFE.  184 

transfers  between  husband  and  wife  shall  bo  recorded  ;  '^ 
and  it  seems  that  general  statutes  which  provide  that 
"no  property  whereof  the  grantor  shall  remain  in  pos- 
session, shall  pass  as  against  his  creditors,  unless  by  bill 
of  sale  duly  recorded,20  apply  to  all  transfers  between 
husband  and  wife,  where  the  grantor  apparently  re- 
mains in  possession.  So  that  not  only  to  meet  the 
difficulty  of  proving  delivery,^!  but  also  to  rebut  the 
presumption  of  fraud,'^  transfers  between  husband  and 
wife  sliould  be  by  formal  instrument  duly  recorded. 

1  Walker  v.  Reamy,  36  Pa.  St.  410,  4IG  ;  ante,  §  119. 

2  Erclman  v.  Rosenthal,  60  Mrt.  312,  316  ;  ante,  H  113-118. 

3  Duffy  ?'.  Insurance,  8  "Watts  <fe  S.  413,  434 ;  Salman  v.  Bennett,  1 
Conn.  525  ;  1  Am.  Lead.  Cas.  31  ;  7  Am.  Dec.  237 ;  cmte,  ?2  104, 105. 

4  Ooff  V.  Rog-ers,  71  Ind.  459,  461  ;  Herschfeldt  v.  George,  6  Mich. 
456,  468  ;  Davis,  25  Gratt.  587,  596  ;  ante,  i  106. 

5  Kehr  v.  Smith,  20  Wall.  .31,  .3.5  ;  Hapgood  v.  Fisher,  34  Me.  407, 
40n ;  Warner  r.  Dove,  .33  Md.  .579,  586,  .587  ;  Woolston,  51  Pa.  ."^t.  412,  456  ; 
Warlick  v.  White,  86  N.  C.  139  ;  41  Am.  Hep.  4.53 ;  ante,  I  104. 

6  Hapgood  V.  Fisher,  .34  Me.  4!»7, 409  ;  Belford  v.  Crane,  16  N.  J.  Eq. 
265,  270 ;  Wheaton  v.  Sexton,  4  Wheat.  504  ;  1  Am.  Lead.  Cas.  1 ;  ante, 
I  109. 

7  Stadtlen  v.  Wood,  24  Tex.  622  ;  BuUis  v.  Borden,  21  Wis.  136 :  ante, 

8  Barneord  v.  Kuhn,  ,36  Pa.  St.  383, 391.  See  Cox,  Law  R.  1  Ch.  Div. 
302,  306  ;  Ware  v.  Gardner,  Law  R.  7  Ex.  317,  321 ;  Wheaton  ?•.  Sexton, 
4  Wheat.  503;  Jones  v.  Clifton,  107  IT.  S.  225,  229,  230;  Clavton  i\ 
Brown,  17  Ga.  217,  219  ;  Lyman  i<.  Cessford,  15  Iowa,  229,  2;U  ;  Enders 
V.  Williams,  1  Met.  (Ky.)  346,  350 ;  Erdman  v.  Rosenthal,  60  Md.  312, 
316. 

9  Lee  v.  Matthews,  10  Ala.  682,  687  ;  Larkin  v.  McMuIlin,  49  Pa.  St. 
2J,  34,  35  ;  ante,  U  118  a,  119. 

10  Clayton  v.  Brown,  17  Ga.  217,  219 ;  Enders  v.  Williams,  1  Met. 
Ky.)  :H6,  350. 

11  Spanlding  v.  Drew,  .55  Vt.  255,  2.57.  See  Walker  v.  Carrington,  74 
111.  445,  465  I  Early  v.  Rolfe,  95  Pa.  St.  58,  60  ;  ante,  i  84. 

12  Bank  v.  Lee,  13  Peters,  107,  118  ;  Drake  v.  Glover,  30  Ala.  390 ; 
Murray  v.  Fox,  1 1  Mo.  555,  565 ;  Palmer  v.  Cross,  1  Smedes  &  M.  48,  SK  ; 
Carpenter,  27 N.  J.  Eq.  502,  ,504  ;  Early  v.  Rolfe,  95  Pa.  St.  5.*t,  61  ;  I^dd 
V.  Hildebrant,  27  Wis.  135,  143  ;  9  Am.  Rep.  445 ;  post,  i  417. 

13  Bank  v.  Lee,  13  Peters,  107,  118  ;  supra,  n.  12  ;  ante,  ??  62,  66,  68. 

14  Pierce,  7  Biss.  426,  429  ;  Moreland  v.  Myall,  14  Bush,  474,  477 ; 
Bowen  v.  Amsden,  47  Vt.  569,  573. 

15  Lyman  v.  Cessford,  15  Iowa,  229,  234. 

16  See  Dilts  v.  Stevenson,  17  N.  J.  Eq.  407,  414. 

17  See  Clayton  v.  Brown,  17  Ga.  217,  219.  . . ,  ^ 


185  POSTNUPTIAL,   SETTLEMENTS.         ^,?  122-123 

18  See  Humphries  v.  Harrison,  30  Ark.  7n  ;  Selover  v.  Commercial, 
7  Cal.  266  ;  Price  v.  Sanchez.  8  Fla.  136  ;  Smith  v.  Hewett,  13  Iowa,  94, 
<J6  ;  Odell  V.  Lee,  14  Iowa,  411,  413  ;  post,  I  232. 

19  Jones.  19  Iowa,  236,  240;  Teague  v.  Downs,  63  N.  C.  280,  287; 
Lewis  V.  Caperton,  8  Gratt.  148,  165  ;  2^ost,  ?  125. 

20  Md.  K.  C.  1878,  ?  45,  p.  300. 

21  Enders  v.  Williams,  1  Met.  (Ky.)  'M6,  350  ;  ante,  ?  120. 

22  Cox,  Law  R.  1  Ch.  Div.  302,  30G  ;  Ware  v.  Gardner,  Law  R.  7  Eq. 
317,  321. 


Akticle  VII.  —  Remedies  Respecting  Postnuptial. 
Settlements. 

5  122.    In  general. 
§  12.3.    Of  parties,  etc. 
i  124.    Of  creditors. 

?  122.  Bemedies  in  general.  —  The  remedies  depend 
almost  entirely  on  tlie  special  modes  of  procedure  in 
the  different  States.^  Tlie  remedies  available  at  the 
time  of  tlie  conveyance  or  any  new  one  may  be  re.sorted 
to.2  A  brief  summary  of  tlie  ordinary  remedies  of  the 
parties  and  of  creditors  is  hereinafter  given.* 

1  See  fully  Bump  Fraud.  Conv.  ch.  22. 

2  Blenkinsoflf,  1  DeGex,  M.  &  G.  495,  12  Beav.  568  ;  ante,  I  2L 

3  Post,  ??  123, 124. 

I  123.  Remedios  of  parties,  otc.  —  Any  settlement  be- 
tween the  parties  is  usually  enforced  in  equity.  ^  There 
the  wife  may  have  it  specifically  performed,^  or  recti- 
fied ;*  and  where  she  and  her  hu.sband  have  conveyed 
her  i^roperty  in  trust  for  her  sole  separate  use,  she  may 
after  his  death  have  it  conveyed  back  to  her ;  *  so  Avhen 
he  has  bought  proj^erty  in  his  name  with  her  money, 
she  may  compel  him  to  convey  to  her.^  But  the 
grantor  cannot  revoke  a  settlement^  or  have  it  set 
aside,^  except  for  fraud.^  No  one  not  a  party  or  cred- 
itor has  any  remedies  at  all.' 

1  Jones,  18  Md.  464,  408  ;  ante,  ??  42,  53. 

2  Grain  r.  Shipman,  45  Conn.  572,  581. 


g  124  POSTNUPTIAL   SETTLEMENTS.  186 

3  Hanley  v.  Pearson,  Law  K.  13  Ch.  D.  545,  549. 

4  Tucker,  75  Pa.  St.  354,  356. 

5  Keller,  45  Md.  270,  272 ;  post,  Eesulting  Trusts,  }  132. 

6  (iainer  v.  Graves,  54  Ind.  188,  192  ;  post,  ?  127. 

7  Hildreth  v.  Eliot,  8  Pick.  203, 296 ;  Cushwa,  5  Md.  44,  .tO  ;  Bo^rser, 
82  Pa.  St.  57,  5a  ;  ante,  'i  100. 

8  Stone  v.  Wood,  85  111.  603,  609  ;  ante,  I  110. 

9  See  ante,  110  ;  Currier  %'.  Ford,  26  III.  458  ;  Thompson  v.  Moore, 
.36  Me.  17;  Oushwa,  5  Md.  44,  50;  Lemay  r.  Bibeau,  2  Minn.  291; 
Graser  t>.  Stellwage-i,  25  N.  Y.  365;  Byrod,  31  Pa.  St.  :ui ;  Norton  v. 
Kearney,  10  Wis.  443. 

I  124.  Bemedies  of  creditors.  —  Courts  of  law  and 
equity  have  concurrent  jurisdiction  over  fraudulent 
conveyances ;  ^  a  creditor  may  treat  the  settlement  as 
voidable,  and  api^ly  to  equiiA^  to  have  it  set  aside, ^  or  as 
void  and  attach  peraonalty,^  or  having  bought  the 
realty  sue  in  ejectment.*  But  if  the  grantor  has  never 
held  the  legal  title,^  as  where  a  hu.sband  has  made  a 
purcha.se  and  taken  the  deed  in  his  wife's  name,®  the 
creditor  must  proceed  in  equity ; '  so  in  the  case  of  bona 
fide  valuable  but  inadequate  consideration.*  A  subse- 
quent creditor  has  no  remedj^  in  the  absence  of  fraud 
hi  fact,*  but  when  an  existing  creditor  has  had  a  settle- 
ment set  aside  subsequent  creditors  may  participate  in 
the  fund.'" 

1  Mulford  V.  Peterson,  35  N.  J.  Eq.  127,  133  ;  Bump  Fraud.  Con- 
vey. 530,  531. 

2  Bump.  Fraud.  Convey.  .'>34. 

3  Cooke,  43  Md.  522,  523  ;  Green  v.  Early,  39  Md.  223,  229,  230. 

4  O'Hara  v.  Dilworth,  72  Pa.  St.  397,  403,  404. 

5  Low  V.  Marco,  52  Me.  45,  49. 

6  Post,  I  132. 

7  Bump  Fraud.  Convey.  532  ;  post,  ?  1.32. 

8  Wright  V.  .Stanard,  2  Brock.  3n,  311 ;  ante,  I  106. 

9  Lynch  ?'.  Raleigh,  3  Ind.  273,  275 ;  ante,  ?  117.  But  see  .Tenkyn  v. 
Vaughan,  3  Drew.  419,  424 ;  Herschfeldt  v.  George,  0  Mich,  im,  466. 

10  Kipp  V.  Hanna,  2  Bland.  26,  35 ;  Thompson  v.  Boughertv,  12 
Serg.  <fe  R.  448.  4.55,  456  ;  Iley  v.  Niswanger,  1  McCord  Ch.  518," 522  ; 
ante,  1 117  ;  Bump  Fraud.  Convey.  324. 


187  KINDS   OF   SETTLEMENTS.  §  125 


Article  III.  — Particular  Kinds  of  Si 

1  125. 

Deeds. 

i  126. 

Equitable  jointure. 

U27. 

Parol  gifts  of  persoaalty. 

i  128. 

Bank  deposits. 

i  129. 

Mingling  of  property. 

i  130. 

Services  and  labor. 

i  131. 

Improvements  on  real  estate. 

§  132. 

Resulting  trusts. 

i  133. 

Life  Insurance  policies. 

8  134. 

Suretyships. 

g  126.  Deeds  of  settlement.  —  Deeds  of  settlement  be- 
tween husband  and  wife,  especially  in  the  case  of 
separation,!  ai"e  common,  and  though  it  is  usual  to 
make  them  through  the  intervention  of  trustees,-  tliis 
is  not  necessary  ,3  but  where  a  trustee  is  needed  the 
husband  is  treated  as  such.*  Such  deeds  are  always 
good  in  equity  if  equitable.^  To  exclude  the  husband's 
marital  rights  in  real  estate  the  deed  should  contain 
express  words,^  but  every  gift  of  personalty  from  hus- 
band to  wife  is  presumed  to  be  for  her  sole  and  sepa- 
rate use.^  In  other  respects  such  deeds  are  like  deeds 
between  strangers ;  for  example,  they  may  be  delivered 
in  escrow; 8  they  are  binding  on  the  parties  by  estop- 
pel.3  All  the  proijerty  rights  of  the  parties  are  often 
settled  by  deed.i" 

1  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ??  182-191. 

2  Barron.  24  Vt.  375.  398. 

3  Jones  v.  Clifton,  101  U.  S.  225,  229.  See  Stewart  M.  <fc  D.  ?  186 ; 
ante,  H  41-13. 

4  Crooks.  34  Ohio  St.  610,  616  ;  Duffy  v.  Insurance,  8  Watts  <fe  S. 
413,  433. 

5  Shepard,  7  Johns.  Ch.  57  ;  11  Am.  Dec.  396 ;  Ewells  Lead.  Cas. 
Cov.  280  :  Sims  v.  Rickets,  35  Ind.  131,  192  ;  9  Am.  Dec.  679. 

6  Plumb  V.  Ives. :»  Conn.  120,  123  ;  Hovt  i'.  Parks,  39  Conn.  357,  360. 
.361  ;  Bowen  v.  Lebree,  2  Bush,  112,  115  ;  Hutchinson  v.  Mitchell,  39 
Tex.  487,  492  ;  post,  i  201. 

7  Helmetag  v.  Frank,  61  Ala.  67,  68  ;  Deming  t'.  Williams,  26  Conn. 
226, 231 ;  Story  v.  Marshall,  24  111.  o0>,  308. 


g^  126-127  KINDS   OF  SETTLEMENTS.  188 

8  Crooks,  U  Ohio  St.  610,  616. 

9  Mulford  V.  Peterson,  36  N.  J.  L.  127,  136  ;  post,  ?  412. 
10    Stewart  M.  &  D.  5?  183-191. 

g  126.  Equitable  jointure. — When  in  a  settlement 
there  is  a  provision  for  the  Avife  expressly  in  lieu  of 
her  dower,  she  will,  after  her  husband's  death,  be  com- 
pelled to  elect  to  take  either  such  provision  or  her 
dower ;  she  cannot  take  both.^ 

1  See  ante,  1 105,  n.  10  ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  3?  43  a,  182  ;  post,  U  266, 
267,  273. 

g  127.  Parol  gifts  of  personalty.  —  Gifts  of  personalty 
between  husband  and  wife  are  usually  good  in  equity 
if  not  at  law ;  i  but  as  they  are  transfers  of  property 
"without  consideration, 2  they  are  invalid  as  against  cred- 
itors, whose  rights  they  prejudice.'  Gifts  causa  mortis 
difier  from  gifts  inter  vivos  only  in  that  the  former  are 
revoked  if  the  donor  does  not  die  as  expected,*  and  are 
therefore  not  separately  discussed.^  The  two  essentials 
of  a  gift  are,  (1)  the  donor's  intent  to  vest  the  title  in 
the  donee  ;^  (2)  tlie  execution  of  such  intent  by  actual 
or  constructive  delivery.^  If  a  gift  is  good  only  in 
equity,  in  must  be  fair,^  reasonable,'  not  extravagant, i" 
in  fine,  equitable.^i  But  once  executed  a  gift  is  irrevo- 
cable,'^  except  under  the  civil  or  Spanish  law.i' 

1.  The  donor^s  intention  to  vest  the  title  in  tlie  donee 
must  be  clearly  proved,"  and  is  a  mere  question  of 
fact,  as  in  the  case  of  gifts  between  strangers.^'  But 
special  presiimptions  arise  from  the  relation  of  the 
parties.^^  Thus,  if  a  husband  buys  property  in  his 
wife's  name,  a  gift  thereof  to  her  is  prima  fa^ie  pre- 
sumed;^' so  if  he  takes  a  jiromissory  note  for  a  debt 
due  him  payable  to  her,^^  or  puts  stock  in  her  name,^® 
or  deposits  money  to  her  credit  ;20  so  if  a  note  is  taken 
paj-able  to  him  and  her,  though  he  may  dispose  of  it 
during  his  life,''  and  perhaps  by  will,*  she  takes  it  as 


1S9  KINDS   OF   SETTLEMENTS.  g  127' 

sui-vivor.-^  still,  these  presumptions  may  always  be 
rebutted  and  tlie  real  intent  sliown.'^*  On  the  otlier 
hand,  when  a  wife  consents  to  her  husband's  expend- 
ing her  money,  a  gift  of  it  to  him  is  presumed,^  unless 
she  shows  tliat  their  intent  was  different ;  for  example, 
that  he  received  it  as  her  agent,^^  or  as  a  loan.'-'  So  a 
gift  is  presumed  if  by  her  consent  he  changes  her 
realty  into  personaltj^'*  where  personalty  is  by  law 
his  ;  ^  but  the  mere  possession  and  user  of  her  chattels 
by  him  is  of  itself  no  evidence  of  a  gift  from  her  to 
him.30 

2.  Delivery  must  be  clearly  proved.^i  A  mere  decla- 
ration, as  "  I  give  you  this  property,''  without  delivery 
is  merely  an  inchoate  gift,^'^  and  is  treated  as  a  promise 
to  make  a  gift^^ — a  promise  which  not  even  courts  of 
equity  enforce.^*  The  same  is  true  thougli  tlie  declara- 
tion be  in  writing,^^  but  not  if  the  writing  be  under 
seal,^^  by  virtue  of  the  principle  of  estoppel.^'  Decla- 
rations are  usually  evidence  only  of  intent ;  ^^  delivery 
must  be  proved  by  facts  showing  actual,  constructive, 
or  symbolic  change  of  possession. ^^  When,  however, 
a  husband  purcliases  property  for  his  wife  as  a  gift,  de- 
livery to  liim  is  delivery  to  her,***  and  subsequent  pos- 
session by  him  is  her  possession.^'  So  tliat,  Avhen  a 
husband  bought  a  horse  for  his  wife,  the  gift  was  up- 
held, though  he  kept  tlie  horse  in  his  stable.*^  But  it 
might  have  been  otlierwise  had  he  first  bought  it  for 
himself  and  then  given  it  to  her;^^  as  when  he  gave 
her  a  wagon  but  retained  possession  thereof  and  used 
it  as  before."  Excejit  in  the  case  of  personal  orna- 
ments and  apparel,^^  it  is  verj^  difficult  to  prove  actual 
delivery  between  husband  and  wife  who  are  living 
together  ;^^  as,  for  example,  delivery  of  houseliold  fur- 
niture," and  especially  so  when  tlie  question  of  fraud 
against  creditors  arises.*^    And  it  may  be  said  that  the 


g  127  KINDS   OF   SETTLEMENTS.  190 

only  safe  delivery  is  by  instrument  under  seal  as  be- 
tween the  parties,^  and  by  recorded  instrument  as 
against  creditors.^"  Delivery  by  order  is  not  perfected 
untU  the  order  is  accepted  or  executed  ;^i  until  such 
time  it  may  be  revoked -^  and  is  revolved  by  the  donor's 
death.^  Delivery  is  not  perfect  unless  accepted  by  the 
donee.^* 

1  See  Mews,  15  t-^av.  529  ;  Kitchen  v.  Bedford,  13  WalL  413, 418  ; 
Eddins  v.  Buck,  23  Ark.  507,  509 ;  Peck  v.  Brummagin,  31  Cal.  440,  446  ; 
Detning  v.  Williams,  26  Conn.  226,  230 ;  Mannv  v.  Rixford,  44  111.  129, 
i:J3  ;  Clawson,  25  Ind.  229,  239  ;  Thomas  v.  Harkness,  13  Bush,  23,  27, 
28  ;  Hutchins  v.  Dixon,  11  Md,  29,  40 ;  Dilts  v.  Stevenson,  17  N.  J.  Eq. 
407,  413;  Seymour  v.  Fellows,  77  N.  Y.  178,  179;  Paschall  v.  Hall,  5 
Jones  Eq.  108,  110  ;  Coates  v.  Gerlach,  44  Pa.  St.  43,  45  ;  Fox  v.  Jones,  1 
W.  Va.  205,  217  ;  ante,  §  43.  Her  equitable  title  becomes  legal  after 
her  husband's  death :  Underhill  v.  Morgan,  33  Conn.  105, 108  ;  Thomas 
V.  Harkness.  13  Bush,  23,  28. 

2  Ante,  U  104-108. 

3  1  Parsons  Cont.  236  ;  ante,  U  109,  111,  113-117. 

4  Couser  v.  Snowden,  54  Md.  175, 183  ;  1  Parsons  Cont.  236,  237. 

5  Thev  are  valid:  Marshall  ti.Jaquith,  134  Mass.  i:}8.  See  Lawson, 
1  P.  Wms.  441,  442;  Miller,  3  P.  Wms.  :i56,  358;  Walter  v.  Hodge,  2 
Swanst.  92  ;  AVhitney  v.  Wheeler,  116  Mass.  490,  492 ;  Whitaker,  62 
N.  Y.  368,  371. 

6  Mannv  v.  Rixford,  44  111.  129, 133  ;  Skillman,  13  N.  J.  Eq.  403,  407  ; 
Paschall  v.  Hall,  5  Jones  Eq.  108,  110. 

7  See  generallj',  Connor  r\  Trawick,  37  Ala.  28:> ;  1  Ala.  Sel.  Cas. 
258;  Camp,  ;«  Conn.  8S ;  4  Am.  Rep.  39;  Minor  v.  Rogers,  40  Conn. 
512  ;  16  Am.  Rep.  63  ;  Kerrigan  v.  Routigan,  43  Conn.  17,  23  ;  Wheeler, 
43  Conn.  503  ;  Evans  ?•.  Lipscomb,  31  Ga.  71  ;  Cranz  j'.  Krager,  22  111. 
74  :  Tavlor  v.  Henry,  48  Md.  5.V) :  30  Am.  Rep.  4S6  ;  Davis  v.  Ney,  125 
Mass.  590  ;  28  Am.  Rep.  272 ;  Kimball  v.  Leland.  110  Mass.  325 ;  Crit- 
tenden V.  Phoenix,  41  Mich.  442  ;  Currv  v.  Powers,  70  M.  Y.  212  ;  26 
Am.  Rep.  577  ;  Tillinghast  v.  Campbell,  80  Pa.  St.  298,  .306  ;  Wheaton, 
8  R.  I.  636  ;  5  Am.  Rep.  621 ;  Infra,  notes  31-61 ;  ante,  i  120. 

8  Clawson,  25  Ind.  229,  239  ;  Hatch  v.  Gray,  21  Iowa.  29,  32. 

9  Coates  v.  Gerlach,  44  Pa.  St.  43,  45, 

10  Paschall  v.  Hall,  5  Jones  Eq.  lOS,  110. 

11  Ante,  ?  43. 

12  Garner  I'.  Graves,  54  Ind.  188, 192.  See  Rivers  v.  Carleton,50  Ala. 
40  ;  Chew,  38  Iowa,  405,  406. 

13  Fuller  V.  Ferguson,  26  Cal.  546,  .574  ;  Eradshaw  v.  Mayfield,  18 
Tex.  21,  25  ;  Ferris  v.  Parker,  13  Tex.  385. 

14  Jennings  v.  Davis,  31  Conn.  134,  142  ;  Mannv  v.  Rixford,  44  111. 
129,  133  ;  Skillman,  13  N.  J.  Eq.  403,  407  ;  Neufville  i'.  Thompson,  3 
Edw.  Ch.  92,  94;  Paschall  v.  Hall.  5  Jones  Eq.  108,  109,  112;  Earl  v. 
Champion,  Go  Pa.  St.  191,  194  ;  Bradshaw  v.  Mayfield,  18  Tex.  21,  25. 

15  2  Schoul.  Pers.  Prop.  88  ;  1  Parsons  Cont.  2.34. 

16  Irvine  ?-.  Greever,  32  Gratt.  411,  417.  See  Welch,  63  Mo.  57,  61 ; 
ante,  U  118-121. 


191  KINDS  OF  SETTLEMENTS.  g  127 

17  Jackson,  91  U.  8.  122,  125  ;  post,  I  132. 

18  Phelps,  20  Pick.  556,  559  ;  Rynders  v.  Crane,  3  Daly,  339,  347  ; 
Scott  V.  Innes,  10  Bosw.  314,  320. 

19  Mason  v.  Fuller,  36  Conn.  160,  163;  Jennings  v.  Davis,  31  Conn. 
134,  142,  143  ;  NeufvUle  v.  Thompson,  3  Edw.  Ch.  92,  94. 

20  Howard  v.  Windham,  40  Vt.  5J7,  699  ;  jiogt,  i  128. 

21  Towle,  114  Mass.  167,  168. 

22  Pile,  6  Lea,  508,  511 ;  40  Am.  Rep.  50. 

23  Sandford,  58  N.  Y.  63,  72  ;  45  N.  Y.  723  ;  post,  ??  12S,  132. 

24  Snider  v.  Eidgeway,  49  111.  522,  524  ;  cases  cited pos^,  ?  128. 

25  Tyson,  M  Md.  35,  38  ;  Mellinger  y.  Bansman,  45  Pa.  St.  522,  529  ; 
ante,  I  42. 

20  Ante,  I  80. 

27  Ante,  I  42. 

28  See  Chaxgk  of  Realty  in-to  Persoxaltv,po«^  5 1S6. 

29  Latimer  v.  Glenn,  2  Bush,  535,  543. 

."0  White  V.  Zone,  10  Mich.  3.33,  a35  ;  Allen  v.  Miles,  36  Miss.  640,  644  ; 
ante,  1 119. 

31  Dilts  V.  Stevenson,  17  X.  J.  Eq.  407,  413,  414.  See  Cotteen  v.  Mis- 
sing, 1  Madd.  176,  183  ;  Woodruff  v.  Clark,  42  N.  J.  L.  198,  202  ;  aupra, 
n.  7  ;  infra,  notes  32-37  ;  ante,  I  120. 

32  Pierce,  7  Biss.  426,  427;  Machen,  38  Ala.  364,  368;  Woodson  v. 
Pool,  19  Mo.  340,  315  ;  Dilts  r.  Stevenson,  17  X.  J.  Eq.  407,  414  ;  Wade  v. 
Cantrell,  1  Head,  346,  347.  Sec  Prater  v.  Frazier,  11  Ark.  249  ;  Hender- 
son, 21  Mo.  379.  Husband's  naked  declarations  are  no  evidence  as 
against  third  parties  of  wife's  title  :  Hanson  v.  Millett,  55  Me.  184,  190  ; 
Parvin  v.  Capewell,  45  Pa.  St.  89,  93. 

33  2  Schoul.  Pers.  Prop.  71. 

34  Cotteen  v.  Missing,  1  Madd.  176,  183  ;  Breton  v.  Woollven,  Law 
R.  17  Ch.  Div.  416,  421 ;  Crooks,  34  Ohio  St.  610,  615. 

35  Breton  v.  Woollven,  Law  R.  17  Ch.  Div.  416,  421. 

36  Fox,  Law  R.  1  Ch.  Div.  302,  306  ;  Enders  v.  Williams.  1  Met. 
fKv.)  346,  3.j(i;  Mulford  r.  Peterson,  35  N.  J.  L.  1-27,  136.  See  Mc- 
Cutchen,9Port.  650. 

37  2  Schoul.  Per.  Prop.  84  ;  post,  i  400. 

38  See  Olds  r.  Powell,  7  Ala.  653  ;  Burney  v.  Ball,  24  Ga.  505  ; 
Morlsey  v.  Bunting,  1  Dev.  3  ;  Sims  v.  Saunders,  Harp.  374  ;  2  Schoul. 
Per.  Prop.  85. 

39  See  1  Parson's  Cent.  234  ;  2  Schoul.  Per.  Prop.  69  et  seq.;  ante, 
{120. 

40  Scott  t'.  Simes,  10  Bosw.  314,  320. 

41  See  Wheeler,  43  Conn.  503,  509  ;  Stewart  v.  Ball,  33  Mo.  1.^,  156  ; 
ante,  i 

42  Wheeler,  iS  Conn.  503,  509. 

43  Wheeler,  43  Conn.  503,  509. 

44  Dilts  V.  Stevenson,  17  >'.  J.  Eq.  407,  414. 

45  Pierce,  7  Biss.  426,  427  ;  Rogers  v.  Fales,  5  Pa.  St.  154,  158. 

46  Ante,  §  121. 

47  Pierce,  7  Biss.  426,  428,    Compare  Allen  v.  Cowan,  23  N.  Y.  502, 


g  128  kutds  op  settlements.  192 

48  Bump  Fraud.  Convey,  ch.  5  ;  ante,  U  111>  121. 

49  See  Millers  v.  Andrus,  1  La,  An.  237  ;  Hutchins  v.  Dixon,  11  Md. 
20,41;  Woodson  v.  MeClellanrt,  4  Nev.  4!)5  ;  Brummet  v.  Barber,  2 
Hill  (S.  C.)  107  ;  cases  supra,  n.  a6.    Consult  ante,  U  102,  129, 12o. 

50  See  Hatch  v.  Orav,  21  Iowa,  29,  32  ;  Lyman  v.  Cessford,  15  Iowa, 
229,  334  ;  aiUe,  J  121. 

31  See  Chalmers  Bills  <fe  Xotes,  2G1,  262 ;  Bromley  v.  Brunton,  37 
Law  J.  Ch.  5)02 ;  Law  R.  6  Eq.  275  ;  Hughes  v.  Stubbs,  11  Jur.  N.  S.  U13  ; 
Howard  i'.  Pace,  15  Ga.  436.    It  is  a  revocable  agency. 

52  Taylor  v.  Henry,  48  Md.  550,  557,  558  ;  30  Am.  Rep.  486. 

53  See  .Tones  v.  Lock,  Law  R.  1  Ch.  25;  Beak,  Lf>.w  R.  13  Eq.  489 ; 
■  Smith,  3  Stew.  5B4  ;  Tivlor  v.  Henry,  48  Md.  550,  558 ;  :iO  Am.  Rep.  486  ; 

Wellborn  v  Odd  PelluWs,  .56  Tex.  501,  505 ;  post,  ?  12S. 

51  2  Schoul.  Per.  Prop.  85. 

\  128.  Bank  deposits  of  husband  and  wife.  —  A  depo.sit 
by  a  husband  of  his  own  money  in  the  names  of  him- 
self and  wife  is  not  in  itself  a  gift  to  her,i  and  if  it  is 
simph'  payable  to  her  she  is  a  mere  agent  to  draw  it,- 
and  her  agency  ceases  on  his  death.^  If  the  deposit  is 
made  in  her  name  alone,  its  effect  depends  on  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  case ;  prima  facie,  except  where  the 
community  system  prevails,"  it  is  a  gift  to  her,^  good 
against  his  heirs,'  though  not  against  liis  creditors  ;8 
but  it  may  bo  shown  that  it  was  not  a  gift  to  her,'  as 
where  it  was  intrusted  to  her  for  the  support  of  the 
family.i"  Of  course  as  between  her  and  the  bank  she 
may  draw  it,  if  the  deposit  is  in  her  sole  name.'i  So  if 
she  deposits  his  money  with  his  consent  in  her  name, 
the  deposit  is  deemed  a  gift  to  her.^'  But  a  gift  by  a 
husband  to  liis  wife  of  a  deposit  in  his  name,  mu.st  be 
perfected  by  delivery.!*  A  check  alone  is  not  delivery," 
and  if  he  dies  before  his  wife  draws  the  money  or  has 
the  check  accepted,  the  gift  does  not  take  effect.^* 

1  Brown,  23  Barb.  565.  56S,  569.  See  Green,  11  Week.  Dig.  .374  ;  post, 
i  311. 

2  See  «n(c,  ?}  89-98. 

3  Wellborn  v.  Odd  Fellows,  .56  Tex.  .501, 505 ;  Second  v.  Wrightson, 
1.J  Md.  Law  Rec.  184,  Feb.  7, 188.5. 

4  Way  11.  Peck,  47  Conn.  23,  25;  McClusky  v.  Provident  Inst.  IM 
Mass.  ;«X).  306. 

.  5    Wellborn  v.  Odd  Fellows,  66  Tex.  .501,  .504  ;  post,  J§  312-319. 


193  KINDS   OF   SETTLEMENTS,  §  129 

6  Howard  v.  Windham,  40  Vt.  597,  599. 

7  Fisk  V.  Cushman,  6  Cush.  20,  25;  Howard  v.  Windham,  40  Vt. 
597,  599. 

8  Ames  v.  Chew,  5  Met.  320,  323;  Spelman  t'.  Aldrich,  126  Mass. 
113, 117. 

9  Way  v.  Peclt,  -47  Conn.  23,  25  ;  MeCubbIn  v.  Patterson.  16  Md.  179, 
184  ;  McClusky  v.  Provident  Inst.  103  Mass.  300,  306. 

10  MnCubbin  v.  Patterson,  16  Md.  179,  184  ;  Bates  r.  Brockport,  89 
N.  Y.  286. 

11  Sweeny  v.  Boston,  116  Mass.  384,  386. 

12  Jennmgs  v.  Davis,  31  Conn.  134, 142,  143. 

13  Ante.  U  120,  127. 

14  Chalmers  Dig.  Bills,  etc.  art.  262. 

15  Couser  v.  Snowden,  54  Md.  175,  183  ;  ante,  ?  127. 

^  129.  Minglin^  of  wife's  with  husband's  property. — 
When  property  of  a  wife  has  become  mixed  with  that 
of  her  husband  que.stions  arise  as  to  the  rights  therein 
of  the  respective  parties  and  their  creditors.^  If  an 
ascertainable  sum  of  a  wife's  money  is  mingled  by  her 
husband  with  his  own  without  her  consent,^  or  upon  an 
understanding  that  it  shall  be  returned,^  she  is  to  the 
extent  of  such  sum  her  husband's  ceattii  que  trust  or 
creditor;*  but  her  consent  alone  to  such  a  course  is 
merely  evidence  of  a  waiver  of  her  rights  and  a  gift  to 
him.^  Thus,  if  a  fund  of  their  mingled  moans  is  in- 
vested with  the  consent  of  both  in  the  name  of  one,  a 
gift  to  that  one  in  jjrima  facie  intended,^  but  the  other 
may  show  that  he  or  she  did  not  relinquish  his  or  her 
rights,  and  establish  a  resulting  trust,'  or  come  in  as  a 
creditor.^  So,  if  he  invests  a  joint  fund  in  her  name 
his  creditors  can  attack  the  investment  only  to  the 
extent  of  his  interest.^  If,  however,  the  amount  of 
money  mingled  is  not  ascertainable  she  cannot  recover 
from  him  or  his  estate,'"  If  by  statute  her  separate 
earnings  are  hers,  she  has  thereby  no  interest  in  money 
earned  jointly  with  her  husband  ;"  she  must  keep  her 
.separate  property  separate  ;'^  nor  can  she  claim  a  gift 
to  her  of  her  earnings  if  these  are  mingled  with  her 
H.  &  W.-17. 


§  129  KINDS  OP  SETTLEMENTS.  194 

husband's;"  in  siieh  case  there  is  no  delivery;"  so 
that  usually  a  joint  business  of  husband  and  wife  is  the 
husband's  business,^*  and  she  has  only  the  rights  of  a 
creditor,!^  and  these  only  to  the  extent  of  money  actu- 
allj^  loaned."  But  she  does  not  waive  her  title  to  chat- 
tels by  allowinc:  hor  husband  to  use  them,  and  mingle 
them  with  his  own,^^  as  in  tlie  case  of  furniture ;  '^ 
though  of  course  she  may  give  them  to  her  hvisl^imd.-" 
The  mingling  by  making  improvements  on  land-^  is 
separately  considered.  When  husband  and  A\ife  died 
about  the  same  time,  each  leaving  a  separate  estate, 
tliey  were  held  equally  entitled  to  a  fund  found  in  her 
trunk.22 

1  See  Hardin  v.  Darwin,  66  Ala.  .'^5,  63  ;  Chambers  v.  Richardson, 
r>7  Ala.  S5,  90;  Dent  v.  Slough, -10  Ala.  SIS,  52:!;  Bridges  r.  Philips,  25 
Ala.  13fi,  1.38;  Laiiffford  v.  Thurlbv,  70  Iowa,  105,  107,  Hawl<iiis  v. 
Piovidenoe,  119  Mass.  50R.  .598 :  20  Am.  Rep.  ;{53;  McClnskv  v.  Provi- 
'l^nt,  im  Mass.  :!00.  .'iOS ;  Glover  r.  Alcott,  11  Mich.  -170,  -179  :  Pawlev  r. 
VoSfl,^2  Mo.  291,  302;  Quidort  v.  Pergcaux,  IS  N.  J.  Kq.  472,  480; 
Frfpnian  ?'.  Orrer,  5  Dner,  476,  479  ;  Filch  ?•.  Rathhiin.GI  N.  Y.  579, 
.581;  RirKback  r.  .\clcrovd  11  Hun,  365,  366 ;  Olidden  v.  Taylor,  16 
Ohio  8".  509,  521  ;  ;>r«f,  5  311 

2  Gover  v.  Owings,  16  Md.  91,  99 ;  ante,  |  43. 

3  Hill,  38  Md.  183,  185 ;  ante,  ?  43. 

4  Dent  V.  Slough,  40  Ala.  518,  523  ;  Chambers  v.  Richardson,  57 
Ala.  85,90;  ante,  i4:i. 

r,  Hawlvins  v.  Providence,  119  Mass.  596,  598;  20  Am.  Rep.  353; 
ante,  I'i  43,  127. 

6  Hardin  )■.  Darwin.  66  Ala.  55,  63;  Adlard,  65  III.  212,  216,  217; 
J.acobs  V.  Miller,  60  Mich.  119, 124.    Consult  po««,  {  132  ;  ante,  ?  127. 

7  Hardin  v.  Darwin,  66  Ala.  55,  63  ;  post,  ?  132, 

8  Chambers  v.  Richardson,  57  Ala.  8.%  90. 

9  Bridges  v.  Phillips,  25  Ala.  136, 138  ;  ante,  I  lor, ;  post,  ?  432.  t'nless 
slie  is  estopped  :  Post,  ?  417. 

10    MnCInskv  f.  Provident,  103  Mass.  300,  306;  Olovor  v.  Alcott,  11 
Mich.  470,  479. 
n    ^;ite,  §  65  ;  pos/,  ?  228. 

12  Blrkback  v.  Ackroyd,  11  Hun,  365,  366. 

13  Quidort  v.  Pergeaux,  18  N.  J.  Eq.  472,480;  Pawley  v.  Vogel,  42 
Mo.  291,  :i02,  303  ;  ante,  i  65. 

14  Delivery  essential,  ante,  ??  120,  127. 

15  Dent  V.  Slough,  40  .A.ia.  518,  523  ;  Langford  v.  Thurlby,  70  Iowa, 
105,  107  ;  Freeman  v.  Orrer.  a  Duer.  476,  479 ,  ante,  H  65. 87.  93, 

16  Glidden  v.  Taylor,  16  Ohio  St.  509, 521. 


195  KINDS   OF   SETTLEMENTS.  ??  130-131 

17  Dent  v.  Slough,  40  Ala.  51S,  523 ;  Chambers  v.  Richardson,  57 
Ala.  85,  90  :  Glover  v.  Alcott,  11  Mich.  470,  479. 

18  Filch  11.  Rathbun,  61  X.  Y.  579,  581. 

19  Filch  V.  Rathbun,  61  N.  Y.  579,  5S1. 

20  Shirley,  9  Paige,  36:!,  365. 

21  Post,  ?  131. 

22  Bergen  v.  Van  IJew,  36  N.  J.  Eq.  637,  reversing  3h  N.  .T.  Eq.  251. 

2  130.  Settlements  of  personal  labor,  etc. — A  husband 
may  labor  gratuitously  lor  his  wife,^  as  in  the  manage- 
ment of  her  property,^  and  his  creditors  do  not  thereby 
acquire  any  rights  against  her  or  her  property.'  When 
a\vife'.s  .services  are  in  law  her  husband  s,*  he  cannot  as 
against  his  creditors  give  her  money  already  earned,^ 
such  earnings  are  no  consideration  for  a  settlement ;  * 
but  even  as  against  his  creditors  he  may,  it  seems, 
abandon  all  riglits  in  her  future  earnings.^  When  a 
wife  is  entitled  to  her  separate  earnings,sif  .slie  labors 
jointly  with  her  husband  witliout  any  special  under- 
standing, it  is  presumed  that  she  intended  to  give  her 
services  to  him.^ 

1  See  Husband  as  "Wifk's  Agent,  ante,  ??  84-88. 

2  Aldridge  v.  Muirheacl,  101  U.  S.  397, 399. 

3  Cooper  v.  Ham,  49  Ind.  393, 416  ;  Miller  v.  Peck,  13  W.  Va.  75,  99  ; 
ante,  §  87. 

4  Ante,  ?  6."). 

5  Cramer  v.  Reford,  17  N.  J.  Eq.  367,  380. 

6  Ante,  ?  105,  n.  28. 

7  Peterson  v.  Mulfnrd,  36  N.  J.  L.  481,487,489  ;  Quldort  c.  Fergeanx, 
18  N.  J.  Eq.  472,479.  Not  if  actual  fraud:  Hazeibaker  v.  Goodfellow, 
64  111.338,241.  The  decisions  are  inharmonious.  A  gift  void  against 
creditors :  Bashim  v.  Chamberlain,  7  Mon.  B.  443,  444,  44.'>.  Void 
against  existing  creditors:  Glaze  v.  Blake,  56  Ala.  379,  385  ;  Pinkston 
1'.  McLemore,  31  Ala.  .308,  ill.  Void  against  subsequent:  Ki-ith  r. 
Woombell,  3  Pick.  211, 213.  Not  void  against  subsequent  unless  i.ctual 
fraud  :  Glaze  v.  Blake,  .56  Ala.  .379,  .38.5.  Good  against  devisees  •  Jones 
V.  Reid,  12  W.  V.a.  350,  .364 ;  29  Am.  Rep.  455.  Her  earnings  not  liable 
to  be  attached  for  his  debts  if  his  earnings  are  exempt:  Hoyt  j. 
White,  46  N.  H.  45,  47. 

8  Ante,  i  65  ;  post,  ?  228. 

3  McCluskv  V.  Provident,  103  Mass.  .300,  304  ;  HoUowell  v.  Horter, 
35  Pa.  St.  375,  .380 ;  ante,  \\  65,  86.     Consult  post,  ?  177. 

\  131.    Improvements  by  one  spouse  of  real  estate  of  other. 


2  131  KINDS   OF   SETTLEMENTS.  196 

—  The  land  of  one  spouse  is  not  liable  for  improvements 
placed  upon  it  by  the  other  either  to  such  other'  or  to 
such  other's  creditors,^  except  (1)  in  the  case  of  a  con- 
tract by  the  owner  of  the  land  which  renders  it  liable,^ 
or  (2)  as  against  creditors,  in  the  case  of  actual  fraud.* 
As  a  general  rule  improvements  placed  upon  real 
estate  witliout  any  agreement  of  tlie  owner  to  the  con- 
trary, become  a  part  of  the  realty  and  are  lost  to  the 
party  who  places  them  there  and  to  his  creditors.^ 
Besides  a  married  woman's  lands  can  be  charged  only 
by  her  o^\m  contract  under  some  statute^  or  in  equity/ 
and  her  husband  cannot,  except  as  her  agent  in  fact,^ 
charge  them  for  her^ — he  cannot,  for  example,  author- 
ize a  mechanic's  lien  on  tliem.'"  As  between  the  par- 
ties in  the  absence  of  contract  there  seems  to  be  no 
ground  even  for  equitable  interference,"  although 
when  a  husband  improperly  uses  his  wife's  money  to 
improve  his  lands  equity  will  cause  her  to  be  reim- 
bursed when  the  lands  are  sold.'^  Nor  ougiit  a  wife's 
lands  to  be  liable  at  all  for  improvements  placed  on 
them  against  her  wishes  or  ^\ithout  her  consent. '^  But 
Avlien  a  husband,  who,  within  the  knowledge  of  his 
wife,  is  indebted,  witli  her  consent  improves  her  prop- 
erty, and  becomes  unable  to  pay  his  debts,  there  is 
good  ground  for  equitable  interference.'* 

I  Consult  Dick  v.  Hamilton,  1  DeTiv,  32-;  Coleman  v.  Smitli,  52 
Ala.  259,  2f>l  ;  Hoot  ti.  Sorrell,  11  Ala.  3SS,  40'i :  Swain  v.  Duane,  -is  Cal. 
:'.iS.  360  ;  Beam  r.  Scrossin,  12  III.  App.  321,  3.30  ;  Mathes  v.  DobsehuPtz, 
7!  111.  438  ;  Capp  v.  Stewart,  38  Ind.  47!),  4S2  ;  Crickmore  v.  Breoken- 
ri  Ige,  51  Inrl.  2!)4,  297,  298  ;  Corning  v.  Fowler,  24  Iowa,  584,  o8(!  ;  Priee 
V.  Levdel,  4fi  Iowa.  6% ;  Robinson  r.  Huffman,  15  Mon.  B.  SO,  83  ;  Wil- 
son V.  Jones,  46  Md.  349,  a57  ;  Wilson  v.  Sands,  3(i  Md.  38  :  I.vnde  ?•. 
JtcGregor,  13  Allen,  182, 1S5  ;  Halle.v  r.  Huntington,  21  Minn.  32.S,  327; 
Kirbv  V.  Bruns,  45  Mo.  234,  2.^5  ;  Bank  v.  Bartlett,  8  Neb.  319  ;  Cas- 
well v.  Hill,  47  N.  H.  407,  415  ;  Oinslev  v.  Mead,  3  Lans.  116, 124  ;  Barto, 
55  Pa.  St.  386,  392  ;  Cater  v.  Eveleiffh,  4  Des.  19,  20 ;  6  Am.  Deo.  596  ; 
Wilkinson,  I  Head,  305,  310:  Knott  %'.  Carpenter,  3  Head,  542,  .544; 
Hughes  V.  Peters,  1  Cold.  67,70;  Holder  ?•.  Crumn,  10  Lea,  320;  Premo 
V.  Hewitt,  55  Vt.  362,  367  ;  White  v.  Hildreth,  32  Vt.  265,  267;  Webster 
r.  Hildreth,  33  Vt.  4.57,  4.V? ;  Rose  v.  Brown,  U  \V.  Va.  122, 127 ;  Bump 
Fraud.  Con  v.  242  ;  anU,  ii  87. 


197  KINDS   OF   SETTLEMENTS,  g  132 

2  Capp  V.  Stewart,  38  Ind.  470,  482  ;  Corning  v.  Fowler,  24  Town, 
5S4,  5S6;  Robinson  r.  Huffman,  15  Mon.  B.  80,  83;  Premo  r.  Hewitt, 
55  Vt.  362,  367  ;  cases  supra,  n.  1. 

3  Criokmora  v.  BreckenridRe.  51  Ind.  2!>4,  2!t8 ;  Wilson  v.  Jones, 
4fi  Md.  340,  'i57.  But  see  under  Community  System,  Roth,  33  La.  An. 
540  ;  post,  ?  314. 

4  Corning  v.  Fowler,  24  Iowa,  584,  580.  See  Hott  v.  Sorrell,  11  Ala. 
388,  40f! ;  Kirhy  v.  Bruns,  45  Mo.  234,  235  ;  Caswell  v.  Hill,  47  N.  H.  407, 
415  ;  Barto,  55  Pa.  St.  38fi,  302  ;  Cater  v.  Eveleigh,  4  Desaus.  Eq.  19,  20; 
6  Am.  Dec.  596  ;  cases  supra,  n.  1. 

5  See  Mather  v.  Fraser,.2  Kay  <fe  J.  536  ;  Farrar  v.  Stackpole,  6 
Me.  IM  ;  19  Am.  Dec.  201  ;  Green  v.  Phillips,  2b  Gratt.  572 ;  21  Am.  Rep. 
323 ;  Boone  Real  Prop,  i  9. 

6  Hall  V.  Eccleston.  37  Md.  510,  519,  520  ;  post,  §  238. 

7  Perkins  v.  Elliott,  23  N.  J.  Eq.  526,  528,  533  ;  post,  ??  206,  207. 

8  Halley  v.  Huntington,  21  Minn.  325,  327  ;  ante,  J?  84,  88. 

9  Capp  V.  Stewart,  38  Ind.  470,  482  ;  Ainsley  v.  Mead,  3  Lans.  llfi, 
124;  Knott?'.  Carpenter,  3  Head,  512,  544;  Hughes  r.  Peters,  1  Cold. 
67,  70  ;  ante,  ?§  84-88. 

10  Knott  V.  Carpenter,  3  Head,  542,  544. 

11  As  gifts  are  not  discountenanced,  ante,  ?5  100, 105, 127. 

12  Coleman  v.  Smith,  52  Ala.  259,  261.  Doctrine  of  resulting  trust, 
2X>st,  ?  132. 

13  Barto,  55  Pa.  St.  386,  392. 

14  Rose  V.  Brown,  11  W.  Va.  122, 137  ;  svpra,  notes  1,  4. 

I  132.  Besulting  trusts  between  husband  and  wife. — 
1.  When  a  hu.sband  buy.s  with  his  ui/e\s  monei/  in  his 
own  name,  there  arises  a  resulting  trust  in  her  fa-vor,! 
unless  a  diflferent  intention  on  her  part  is  shown  ;''  and 
the  burden  of  proof  is  on  the  husband  to  show  she  in- 
tended a  gift  to  him,^  which  is,  however,  prima  facie 
established  by  proof  of  her  knowledge  and  consent.* 
The  wife,  on  her  part,  must  clearly  show  that  her 
money  was  paid.'  When  such  a  resulting  trust  has 
arisen,  the  husband's  creditors  cannot  complain  if  he 
conveys  the  legal  title  to  her,^  though  he  does  so  to 
defeat  their  remedies  against  the  property.'  While 
this  property  is  not  liable  for  the  hu.sband's  debts,^  his 
bona  fide  assignee  for  value  without  notice  takes  it  clear 
of  the  trust.9 

2.  When  a  husband  buys  with  his  own  money  in  his 
wif€\s  name,  the  transaction  is  deemed  an  advancement 


^132  KINDS  OF   SETTLEMENTS.  19S 

and  gift  to  her,'"  unless  a  different  intention  on  his 
part  is  sliown,^^  as  where  she  had  agreed  to  hold  it  for 
him,''^  or  was  invested  with  the  title  for  liis  conven- 
ience, he  being  111,^^  or  a  foreigner."  In  such  cases  no 
resulting  trust  arises  in  favor  of  hiniself,!^  or  his  heirs,'^ 
but  one  does  arise  in  favor  of  such  creditors  of  his  as 
could  have  set  aside  a  direct  conveyance  of  equal  value 
from  him  to  her,i'  tliat  is  to  say,  existing  creditors,i8 
unless  the  settlement  was  fair  and  reasonable,'*  but  not 
subsequent  creditors,^''  unless  there  was  fraud  in  fact,^ 
For  a  married  woman  may  be  trustee,  even  by  impli- 
cation and  against  her  will.^^  Still  in  these  cases  she  is 
trustee  only  to  the  extent  of  the  money  paid  by  her 
husband. ^2 

3.  Every  purchase  by  a  married  woman  in  her  own 
name  is  deemed  to  have  been  made  with  her  husbancfs 
money, ''■^  but  she  maj^  show  lier  funds  were  used.^  So 
if  she  has  paid  only  a  part  she  is  directly  interested  in 
the  purchase  to  that  extent,^  and  holds  the  title  as 
security^  when  it  is  assailed  by  her  husband's  cred- 
itors.28 

4.  A  purchase  by  a  married  woman  ivith  her  hus- 
hancVs  funds  in  her  own  name  is  deemed  a  settlement 
by  him  on  lier,'^  unless  it  appears  tliat  slie  did  so 
wrongfully ,3"  or  with  a  different  purpose.^' 

5.  A  purchase  with  the  money  of  both  in  the  name  of 
one  is  deemed  a  gift  to  that  one,^'^  unless  the  other 
shows  a  different  intent,^  or  a  breach  of  trust.'*  If  the 
purchase  is  in  the  name  of  both,  a  tenancy  by  entireties 
is  created.^5 

6.  A  resulting  trust  can  be  enforced  only  in  equity."^ 

1  Harris  v.  Brown,  30  Ala.  -101,  402;  Plummer  r.  Jarman. -44  5td. 
632,  6:«;  Keller,  45  Md.  270,  275;  Wales  v.  Newbould,  0  Mich.  '5,  (H  ; 
Barnoordt).  Kuhn,36Pa,  St.  383,  390;  Keady  v.  Bragg,  1  Head,  511, 
515,  516. 

2  Wales  v.  Newbould,  9  Mich.  45, 64  ;  infra,  n.  11. 

3  Wales  V.  ^"ewbould,  9  Mich.  45,  64  ;  ante,  I  86. 


199  KINDS   OF   SETTLEMENTS,  §  133 

4  Consult  Tyson,  54  Md.  SS,  38  ;  ante,  ?§  42,  127. 

5  Plummer  v.  Jarman,  44  Md.  6.32,  638. 

6  Harris  v.  Brown,  30  Ala.  401,  402  ;  ant^.  §  105,  n.  22. 

7  Wilson  V.  Sheppard,  28  Ala.  623, 629. 

8  Ready  v.  Bragg,  1  Head,  511,  515. 

9  Gormant>.  Wood,  l&SGa.  524;  Darnaby,  14  Bush,  485, 488.  Consult 
ante,  J  100. 

10  Evkyn,  LawR.  6  Ch.  Div.  115,  118;  Jackson,  91  U.  S.  122,  1Z5  ; 
Ward,  36  Ark.  .586,  .5S8 ;  Andrews  v.  Oxley,  38  Iowa,  578,  580  ;  Edgerly, 
112  Mass.  175,  179  ;  Darner,  58  Mo.  222.  227  ;  Linker,  .32  N.  J.  Eq.  174,  177; 
Scott  V.  Simes,  10  Bosw.  314,  319  ;  Irvine  v.  Greever,  32  Gratt.  411,  417; 
Bent,  44  Vt.  555,  559. 

11  See  Marshall  v.  Curtwell,  Law  R.  20  Eq.  328,  331  ;  Higgins,  46 
Cal.257,  263  ;  Wormlev,  98  111.  544;  Darner,  58  Mo.  222,  227  ;  Linker,  n 
N.  J.  Eq.  174,  177  ;  Dunn  v.  Hornbeck,  7  Hun,  629,  630  ;  Irvine  v. 
Greever,  32  Gratt.  411,  418  ;  Bent,  44  Vt.  555,  559. 

12  Bent,  44  Vt.  555,  559. 

13  Marshall  v.  Curtwell,  Law  R.  20  Eq.  328,  331. 

14  Dunn  v.  Hornbeck,  7  Hun,  629,  630. 

15  Jackson,  91  U.  S.  122,  125 ;  Ward,  36  Ark.  586,  588  ;  Peck  v.  Brum- 
magim,  31  Cal.  440,  447;  Ramsrteli  r.  Fuller,  28  Cal.  37,  43;  Wing  -. 
Goodman,  75  111.  159,  16 ! ;  Indianapolis  x\  McLaughlin,  77  III.  275.  278  ; 
Garner  v.  Graves,  54  Ind.  IS**,  192  ;  Snow  v.  Paine,  114  Mass.  520,  526  ; 
McCowan  v.  Donaldson.  12S  Miiss.  169.  170. 

16  Adams  v.  Brackett,  5  Met.  280,  286. 

17  See  Wnig  r.  Goodman,  75  111.  159, 163 ;  Shepard  v.  Pratt,  32  lowe, 
29(1,298,301;  Baker  v.  Dobyns,  4  Dana,  220  225;  Duhme  v.  Young.  3 
Bush,  343,  349,  351 ;  Hearn  v.  Lander,  11  Bush,  669,  676  ;  Low  v.  Marco 
53  Me.  45,  49;  Warner  v.  Dove,  33  Md.  579,  586  ;  Matthews  v.  Torinus, 
22  Minn.  132, 135  ;  Rogers  v.  McCaule»',  23  Minn.  384,  .386  ;  Hill  v.  Bugg, 
52  Miss.  397,  401  ;  Rose  v.  Brown,  11  W.  Va.  122,  136;  ante,  U  113-117. 

18  Ante,  ?  116. 

19  Shepard  v.  Pratt,  32  Iowa,  296,  301 ;  Duhme  v.  Young,  3  Bush, 
343,  349  ;  Warner  v.  Dove,  33  Md.  579, 584 ;  ante,  i  116. 

20  Ante,  1 117. 

21  Duhme  v.  Young,  3  Bush,  »43,  349;  Matthews  v.  Torinus,  22 
Minn.  132,  135  ;  ante,  ?  117. 

22  Hardin  v.  Darwin,  G6  Ala.  55, 61,  62  ;  post,  ?  450. 

2.1  Shepard  v.  Pratt,  32  Iowa.  290, 298, 300  ;  Hearn  ^•.  Lander,  11  Bush, 
669,  G7G ;  Hill  j.  Bugg,  52  Miss.  397, 401.    Consult  ante,  \  106. 

24  Seitz  V.  Mitchell,  94  U.  S.  580,  582 ;  Rose  v.  Brown,  11  W.  Va.  122, 
13G. 

25  Higgins,  46  Cal.  2.57,  26T  ;  Ramsdell  v.  Fuller,  28  Cal.  .37,  42;  Mc- 
Donald V.  Badger,  23  Cal.  393,  398  ;  Houston  v.  Curl,  8  Te.\.  242 ;  58  Am. 
Dec.  110.    Consult  supra,  notes  1-9. 

23  Hopkin-i  r.  Carey,  23  Miss.  .54,  .58. 

27  Grain  v.  Shipman,  45  Conn.  572,  583.     Consult  «n?e,  ?  106. 

28  Hill  V.  Bugs,  52  Miss.  397,  401  ;  ante,  ?  124. 

20    Adlard,  65  111.  212,  216,  217  ;  Darner,  58  Mo.  222,  227. 
30    Darner,  58  Mo.  222,  227. 


§  133  KINDS  OF  sp:ttl,ements.  200 

31  Consult  supra,  notes  11-H. 

32  Hardin  ti.  Darwin,  6fi  Ala.  55,  65 ;  Adlard,  65  111.  212,  216.    Does 
husband  have  to  prove  gift :  Hiqyra.  notes  3,  4. 

33  Marshall  v.  Curtwell,  Law  R.  20  Eq.  328,  331 ;  Hopkins  v.  Carey, 
23  Miss.  54,  58. 

34  Adlard,  65  111.  212,  217,  218. 

35  Jacobs  V.  Miller,  50  Mich.  119, 124,  realty  ;  Eykyn,  Law  R.  6  Ch. 
Div.  115,  118,  personalty. 

36  Low  V.  Marco,  53  Me.  45. 49. 

\  133.  Insurance  of  husband's  Ufa  for  bonofit  of  wife. — 
A  wife  has  a  direct  interest  in  the  life  of  her  husband,' 
which  may  be  insured  by  him  (and  by  her  under 
special  statutes  2)  for  her  benefit.^  When  such  insur- 
ance has  been  made  the  policy  is  her  separate  prop- 
erty,* the  proceeds  belong  not  to  the  community  but  to 
her  and  her  representatives;^  she  may  assign  it,*  even 
for  her  husband's  debt,^  but  such  assignment  must  be 
free  from  fraud*  and  duress  ;'  but  he  cannot  assign  it  '^ 
or  defeat  her  rights,  as  by  a  fraudulent  surrender;" 
nor  can  either  of  them  so  defeat  the  rights  of  children 
who  are  also  Ijeneficiaries ;  '^  still,  if  he  survives  her  he 
may  surrender  a  policy  taken  out  for  her  benefit,'"  or 
dispose  of  it  by  AviU,i*  or  have  another  person,  as  a 
second  wife,  made  beneficiary.'^  Her  separate  estate  is 
not  however  liable  for  the  premiums.'^  If  a  husband 
assigns  a  policy  for  his  benefit  to  his  wife  for  hers,  I'z 
may,  just  as  any  other  assignment,"  be  a  fraud  on  his 
creditors ;  •*  so  if  he  surrenders  a  policy  in  his  name 
and  takes  out  one  in  hers,"  for  thjs  is  really  an  assign- 
ment ;  '^  so  if  he  makes  a  large  and  unreasonable  insur- 
ance in  her  favor  when  he  is  indebted;''"  but  even 
against  creditors  he  may  insure  hLs  life  for  her  benefit 
for  a  reasonable  amount.^  Statutes  often  exempt  insur- 
ance policies  from  the  claims  of  creditors."^ 

1  Gambs  v.  Covenant,  50  Mo.  44,  47. 

2  Thompson  v.  American,  46  N.  Y.  674,  675  ;  post,  I  393. 

3  Gambs  v.  Covenant,  50  Mo.  44,  47.  \ 


201  KINDS   OF    SETTLEMENTS.  ?   134 

4  PomeroY  v.  Manhattan,  40  III.  399,  402  ;  Southern  v.  Booker, 
9  Hoisk.  600,  CIS. 

5  Bofenschen,  29  La.  An.  711, 714. 

6  (Jodfrevi'.  Wilson,  70  Ind.  50,  56;  WTiitrldge  v.  Barry,  42  Md. 
140, 152  ;  Aiusworth  v.  Backus,  5  Hun,  414,  417  ;  po.it,  ?  236. 

7  Emerick  v.  C'oakley,  35  Md.  188, 190  ;  ]Mst,  I  134. 

8  Ante,  ?  110. 

9  Emoriclc  t-.  Coaklcv,  35  Md.  188, 190 ;  Whitrlda;e  v.  Barry,  42  Md. 
140,  \yi  ;  Fowler  v.  Butterly.  78  N.  Y.  63  ;  34  Am.  Rep.  507  ;  ante,  §  110. 

10  See  Knickerbocker  v.  Weitz,  99  Mass.  157, 159;  Barry  r\  Mutual, 
4*)  How.  Pr.  504,  508  ;  Southern  v.  BooI:er,  9  Heisk.  606,  618,  619 

11  Barry  v.  Mutual,  40  How.  Pr.  504,  50S. 

12  Meller,  Law  R.  6  Ch.  Div.  127,  128.     Consult  sujyra,  n.  10. 

13  Oambs  v.  Covenant,  50  Mo.  44,  47  ;  Kermau  v.  Howard,  23  MHs. 
108.  112. 

14  Kcrman  v.  Howard,  23  Wis.  103, 112. 

15  Gambs  v.  Covenant,  50  Mn.  44,  47. 
10    Ogden  V.  Guill,  5r,  Miss.  330,  332. 

17  Ante,  5?  113-117. 

18  ElUott,  50  Pa.  St.  75, 83.    See  English  M.  Woman's  Act  1882,  ?  11. 

19  Stokes  V.  Coffey,  8  Bush.  53,-!,  538. 

20  That  is  to  say,  it  is  an  indirect  transfer:  See  rt)i?e,  ?  99. 

21  Stokes  V.  Coffey,  8  Bush,  533,  .'i38. 

22  Smedlev  v.  Felt,  43  Iowa,  607,  flOS  ;  Stokes  v.  Coffey,  S  Bush,  5.30, 
5'«;  Elliott,  50  Pa.  St.  78,  83;  Southern  v.  Booker,  9  Heisk.  006,  618. 

23  Md.  E.  C.  1878,  p.  4S.3,  J  26. 

?  134.  Wife  as  surety  for  her  husband.  —  Contracts  and 
conveyances  by  a  wife  for  the  benefit  of  her  husband's 
creditors  are  in  reality  indirectly  contracts  and  convey- 
ances with  him.i  But  special  considerations  have 
arisen  with  reference  to  the  wife's  capacity  to  be  surety 
for  her  husband,  and  to  the  incidents  of  her  surety- 
ship,* 

1.  Capacity  under  general  powers.  In  the  absence  or 
exjjress  prohibition  in  the  settlement  or  statute  whence 
she  derives  her  capacity  to  contract,^  a  wife  can  to  the 
full  extent  of  tliat  capacity,  equitable*  or  statutory,^ 
contract  as  surety  for  her  husband.^  Thus  mortgages 
by  wife  for  husband's  debts  are  common,'  so  are 
assignments  of  personalty;^  and  a  married  woman 
who  can  make  a  promissory  note^  can  indorse  one  for 


^    134  KIXDS   OF   SKTTLEMEXTS.  202 

her  husband. i»  For,  as  to  her  equitable  separate  estate 
she  may  do  as  she  pleases  "  It  is,  however,  necessary 
to  note  that  the  different  rules  which  prevail  as  to 
when  a  contract  of  hers  binds  this  estate  i-  apply  also  to 
her  contracts  of  suretyships,  and  while  in  8ome  States 
any  such  contract  binds  it,'^  in  others  the  contract 
must  be  for  its  benefit,^*  or  expressly  charge  it.^  As  to 
her  statutory,  separate  estate,  since  the  statute  does  not 
prohibit  her  dealing  with  it  for  the  benefit  of  others, 
and  since  no  special  incapacity  to  do  so  exists  by  the 
unwritten  law,  she  may  pledge  or  convey  it  for  her 
husband's  debt.i^  For  the  same  reasons  there  is  no 
ground  for  engrafting  on  general  enabling  acts  an 
exception  as  to  suretyship.^' 

2.  Capacity  limited  by  statute.  In  some  States  stat- 
utes expressly ,^8  or  by  necessary  implication,^''  prohibit 
a  wife's  contracts  as  surety  for  her  husband. ^o  But 
such  is  not  the  effect  of  statutes  forbidding  contracts 
between  husband  and  A\ife,^  or  pro^ading  that  a  wife's 
jjroperty  shall  not  be  liable  for  her  husband's  debts.^^ 
Xor  does  a  statute  which  prohibits  such  contracts  as  to 
her  statutory  separate  property  affect  her  capacity  as 
to  her  equitable  separate  property.^^ 

3.  Contract  otherwise  binding.  The  contract  must, 
however,  not  only  be  one  which,  though  a  married 
woman,  she  has  capacity  to  make, 2'  but  also  one  which 
would  bind  her  as  surety  if  unmarried.^  Thus,  there 
must  be  a  consideration,"^  though  it  need  not  move  to 
her ;  ^  if  she  becomes  security  for  a  debt  before  it  is 
contracted,  or  afterwards  in  accordance  with  a  prior 
understanding,  the  debt  itself  is  a  binding  considera- 
tion ;  ^  but  if  the  debt  has  already  been  contracted,  she 
cannot  render  herself  liable  therefor  AA-ithout  some  new 
consideration,^  such  as  an  extension  of  time,'"  or  a  for- 
bearance to  sue,'^  and  the  statute  of  frauds  requiring  a 


203  KINDS   OF   SETTLEMENTS.  ^  1G4 

memorandum  of  a  promise  to  answer  for  the  debt,  etc., 
of  another,  applies  equally  to  such  promises  by  mar- 
ried Avomen.3^'  If  her  contract  has  been  secured  by  the 
creditor's  illegal  threats^  or  duress 3*  she  is  not  bound  ; 
but  fraud  on  the  part  of  her  husband  alone  will  not 
affect  her  liability ;  ^  still  she  is  more  readily  relieved 
for  fraud  than  a  stranger  to  her  husband  would  be.^^ 

4.  Implied  suretyship.  Whenever  a  wife  conveys  or 
mortgages  her  property,  or  binds  herself  for  her  hus- 
band's debt  she  does  so  prima  facie  simply  as  his  sure- 
ty ;3^  but  Avhether  she  is  so  or  not  depends  upon  her 
intent,^8and  the  debt  may  be  shown  to  have  really  been 
hers.^'  Nor  is  she  a  surety  as  far  as  concerns  creditors 
if  she  is  one  of  the  original  contractors  and  nothing- 
else  appears.^" 

5.  Incidents  of  her  suretyship.  Whenever  a  wife  is 
expressly  or  impliedly,  as  above,  surety  for  her  hus- 
band, she  has  the  same  rights  as  other  sureties.*- 
Thus,  she  has  her  equity  of  exoneration.*^  She  may 
not  onlj',  if  she  has  paid  his  debt,  go  against  him  for 
reimbursement  pari  passu  with  his  other  creditors,*^ 
being  subrogated  to  the  rights  of  the  creditor  she  has 
paid,"  but  she  may  compel  him  or  his  representatives 
to  redeem  her  goods  which  have  been  pledged  for  his 
debt ;  *^  and  after  his  death  she  *^  or  her  representative  *' 
or  her  cj editor*®  may  have  her  pioperty  exonerated  of 
its  liability  out  of  his  real  and  personal  estate.*^  As  in 
the  case  of  other  sureties  she  may  compel  the  creditor 
to  first  exhaust  the  isrincipal's  means  ;="  if  any  of  his 
securities  are  I'eleased,^!  or  his  time  is  extended,^-  or  if 
he  buys  the  debt,=^  she  is  discharged.  If  her  mortgaged 
estate  is  sold  for  her  husband's  debt  under  decree,  she 
may  have  a  decree  over  against  him.^* 

6.  Authorities^.  The  authorities  on  this  subject  in 
the  several  States  are  very  numerous  and  are  collected 
in  a  note.^ 


g  134  KINDS   OF   SETTLEMENTS.  204 

1  But  see  Major  v.  Holmes,  124  Mass.  lOS,  109.  Indirect  contracts 
between  husband  and  wife  were  always  valid :  Ante,  J  42. 

2  See  cases  collected  infra,  n.  65. 

3  A  married  woman  having  no  capacity  to  contract  at  common 
law  can  do  so  only  in  equity  or  by  statute :  I'ost,  Contracts  of 
Makkied  Women,  5?  355-393. 

i  Compare  Perkins  v.  Elliott,  23  N.  J.  Eq.  526, 528, 533  ;  and  Muller 
r.  Bayley  21  Gratt.  521,  529. 

5  Compare  Wolff  d.  Van  Meter,  19  Iowa,  134, 136  ;  and  Woolsey  v. 
Brown,  74  N.  Y.  82,  84 

6  Grelner,  58  Cal.  115, 122  ;  Collins  t».  Dawley,  4  Colo.  138  ;  Ayres  v. 
Husted,  15  Conn.  504,517  ;  Edwards  i'.  Schoeneman,  104  III.  278,285; 
Hubble  V.  Wright,  23  Ind.  322,  324;  Low  v.  Anderson,  41  Iowa,  476, 
478  ;  Latimer  v.  Glenn,  2  Bush,  535,  543  ;  Mayo  v.  Hutchinson,  57  Me. 
546,  577  ;  Emericli  v.  Coakley,  35  Md.  188,  190  ;  Hall  v.  Tay,  131  Mass. 
102, 193  ;  Watson  v.  Thurber,  11  Mich.  457;  Stone  v.  Montgomery,  35 
Miss.  83, 104  ;  Wilcox  v.  Todd,  64  Mo.  388,  .^89  ;  Harrall,  31  N.  J.  Eq.  101, 
102  ;  Woolsev  v.  Brown,  74  N.  Y.  82,84  ;  Purvis  v.  Carstaphan,  73  N.  C. 
.'i75,  581 ;  BalVlwi!!  v.  Siiowden,  11  Ohio  St.  203,  211  ;  Moore  v.  Fuller, 
6  Ores  272 ;  25  Am.  Hop.  524  ;  Haffey  ti.  Carey,  73  Pa.  St.  431,  432  ;  Mc- 
Ferrin  v.  White,  6  Cold.  499;  Rhodes  v.  Gibbs,  39  Tex.  432  ;  Muller  v. 
Bayley,  21  Gratt.  521,  529  ;  cases  collected  infra,  n.  55. 

7  Short  V.  Battle,  52  Ala.  4.56,  460  ;  Spear  v.  Ward,  20  Cal.  660,  674  : 
Young!'.  Graff.  28  111.  20:  Brockschnii  It  v.  Hogebrush,  72  111.  r,i\2  ; 
Washburn  r.  Roesch,  13  III.  App.  2t»,  272  ;  Hubble  v.  Wright,  23  Ind. 
322,  324  ;  Menu  r.  Roche,  77  Ind.  4S,  51  ;  Wolff  v.  Van  ]Met(.T,  23  Iowa, 
297  ,  Green  v.  Scraniige,  19  Iowa,  461,  465  ;  Comegy  v.  Clark,  44  Mil.  lOS. 
Ill  ,  Heburn  v.  Warner,  112  M  iss.  271,  275  ;  Smith  v.  Osborn,  33  Mi  ■li. 
410  ;  Arastrong  v.  Stovall,  26  Miss.  275,  2s0  ;  Schneider  v.  Stair,  20  Mo. 
269 ;  Wilcox  V.  Todd,  64  Mo.  ass,  3s:i ;  Rubbins  v.  Abrahams,  5  N.  J. 
Eq.  465  ;  Bank  v.  Burns,  46  N.  Y.  170,  175  ;  McVey  v.  Cantrell.  70  N.  Y. 
295,  297;  26  Am.  Rop.  605;  Purvis  v.  Carstaphan,  73  N.  C.  575,  5^1; 
Moore  v.  Fuller,  6  Oreg.  272  ;  25  Am.  Rep.  .524  ;  Bayler  v.  Com.  40  Pa. 
St.  37  43 ;  Jamison,  3  Whart.  457  ;  Lvtle,  .36  Pa.  St.  131,  133  ;  McForrin 
V.  White,  6  Cold.  499 ;  Rhodes  v.  Gibbs,  39  Tex.  432  ;  Muller  v.  Boyly , 
21  Gratt.  521,  529.    See  also  infra,  n.  55. 

8  Collins  1'.  Dawley, 4  Colo.  138  ;  .34  Am.  Rep.  72 ;  Pomerov  i'.  Man- 
hattan, 40  111.  398  ;  Emerick  v.  Coakley.  35  Md.  188,  190. 

9  Post,  ch.  xxi.,  i  385. 

10  Major  v.  Holmes,  124  Mass.  108,  109  ;  Konworthy  v.  Sawver,  125 
Mass.  2-i,  2,1 ;  Goodnow  v.  Hill,  125  Mass.  5,^7, 5S.).  Compare  De  Vries  v. 
Co:ikli:i,  22  Mich.  255,  2.58,  260  ;  Sawyer  v.  Fernald,  59  Mo.  5U0,  ,502. 

U    Muller  v.  Rayley,2l  Gratt.  521,  529  ;  post,  H  206,  207. 

12  As  to  these  rules  see  post,  H  205-207. 

13  See  Nunn  v.  Giohaa,  45  Ala.  370,  375  ;  Short  v.  Battle,  .52  Ala.  456, 
4G0  ;  Deerijig  v.  Boyle,  8  Kan.  .525  ;  12  Am.  Rep.  480  ;  ix>st,  I  207. 

14  See  Willard  v.  Eastham  15  Gray,  328,  335 ;  Athol  v.  Fuller,  107 
Mass.  437,  439  ;  Perkins  v.  Elliott,  23  N.  J.  Eq.  526,  528,  533  ;  Gosman, 
6,1  N.  Y.  87  ;  25  Am.  Rep.  141  ;  Hansee  v.  Dewitt,  63  Barb.  53  ;  Bogert 
r.  Gulick,  65  Barb.  322  ;  Hartman  v.  Ogborn,  54  Pa.  St.  120,  122  ;  post, 
8  207. 

15  See  McVev  v.  Cantrell,  70  N.  Y.  295, 297  ;  Perkins  v.  Elliott,  23  N. 
J.  Eq.  526,  528,  5-33  ;  post,  H  206,  207. 

16  See  Low  v.  Anderson,  41  Iowa,  476, 46S  ;  post,  I'i  206,  207. 


205  KIXDS   OF   SETTLEMENTS.  §  184 

17  See  Low  v.  Anderson,  41  Iowa.  476,  478  ;  Mayo  r.  Hutchinson,  57 
Me.  M6,  547  ;  Kenworthy  v.  Sawyer,  125  Mass.  28,  29  ;  Woolsey  v. 
Brown,  74  N.  Y.  82,  84  ;  Com.  v.  Babcook,  42  N.  Y.  61.3.  The  cases  In 
the  last  five  notes  are  merely  Illustrative  of  the  te.xt. 

18  Ga.  E.  C.  178.3  ;  Ind.  R.  S.  1S81,  ?  5119  ;  N.  J.  Rev.  1877,  p.  6.37. 

19  Bibb  V.  Pope,  43  Ala.  190,  200  ;  Bowman  v.  Kaufman,  30  La.  An. 
1021,  1025. 

20  See  also  Northlngton  v.  Farber,  .52  Ala.  45,  47  ;  Dunbar  v.  Mize, 
63  Ga.  4.35,  437  ;  Poxworth  v.  Magee,  44  Wis.  430;  Erwin  v.  Hill,  47 
Miss.  675  ;  infra,  n.  55,  Ala.  Ga.  and  Miss,  cases. 

21  Major  v.  Holmes,  124  Mass.  108, 109  ;  IMass.  R.  S.  1882,  p.  819,  ?  2. 

22  Hubble  V.  AVright,  23  Ind.  322,  324. 

23  Compare  Short  v.  Battle,  52  Ala.  458,  460  ;  with  Northlngton  v. 
farber,  .52  Ala.  45,  47. 

24  Schmidt  V.  Postel,  63  111.  59,  60;  Dovle  v.  Kelly,  75  111.  574; 
O'Dailv  ('.  Morris,  31  Ind,  111,  115  ;  Wolff  v.  Van  Metre,  19  Iowa,  134, 
130  ;  West  V.  LaraWay,  28  Mich.  464,  46.5. 

25  Hetherlngton  v.  Hixon,46  Ala.  297,  298 ;  Sawyer  v.  Fernald,  .59 
Me.  500,  .•.02;  De  Vries  v.  Conklln,  22  Mich.  255,  2.58,  260;  Bayler  v. 
Com.  40  Pa.  St.  37,  44  :  Hatz,  40  Pa.  St.  209,  212 ;  White,  36  Pa.  St.  1.34, 
140.    See  Baylie's  on  Sureties,  ch.  4. 

26  Sawyer  v.  Fernald,  .59  Me.  .500,  502  ;  supra,  n.  25. 

27  Hall  V.  Tay,  131  Mass.  192,  193. 

28  See  Baylies  on  .Sureties,  ch.  4. 

29  De  Vries  v.  Conklln,  22  Mich.  2.55,  2.58,  260  ;  supra,  n.  25. 

30  Green  v.  .Scranage,  19  Iowa,  461,  465 ;  Low  v.  Anderson,  41  Iowa, 
476,  478. 

31  Emerick  i\  Coakley,  .3.5  Md.  188,  190. 

32  29  Car.  2,  ch.  3,  J  4  I  Alex.  Brit.  Stat.  p.  527. 

33  Green  v.  Scranage,  19  Iowa,  4P1,  463  ;  McGrary  v.  Reilley,  14 
Phila.  Ill,  112.   ■ 

34  Eadie  v.  Simmons,  26  N.  Y.  9, 12. 

35  Rogers  v.  Adams,  6r.  Ala.  60i\  60^ ;  Collin'^  v.  Wassell,  34  Ark.  17, 
35;  Green  v.  Scranage,  19  Iowa,  461,  463;  Baldwin  v.  Snowden,  11 
Ohio  St.  203,  211 ;  ante,  i  110. 

36  Hammit  v.  Bull,  8  Phila.  29,  30 ;  ante,  ?  110. 

37  Huntington,  2  Bro.  P.  C.  1  ;  2  White  ife  T.  Lead.  Cas.  1010  ;  Has- 
Bjy  V.  Wilkp,  38  Hun,  .i25,  .528  ;  Spear  r.  Ward,  20  Cal.  660,  674  ;  Ayres 
V.  Husted,  15  Conn.  .504,  517  ;  Lnrinipr  v.  Glenn,  2  Bush, 535,  .543  ;  Johns 
V.  Reardon,  11  Md.  465,  46j;  Knight  v.  Whitehead,  26  Miss.  24.S  246  • 
Wilcox  V.  Todd,  61  Mo.  .3SS,  389  ;  Loomer  v.  Wheel\vrii?Iit.  3  Smd.  Ch. 
l;.5,  1.54;  Bank  1'.  Burns,  46  X.  Y.  170.  175;  Purvis  >:  Carstaphaii, 
7!  N.  C.  .57.5,  .581  ;  Miner  i\  Graham,  24  Pa.  St.  491,  495  ;  Hammit  v.  Bull, 
8  Phila.  29.  ?n  ;  infm,  notes  41-54,  This  do-s  not  appiv  to  her  release 
of  dower :  Havvley  v.  Bradford,  9  Paige,  200,  201. 

38  Dufly  V.  Insurance,  8  Watts  &  S.  413,  433. 

39  Clinton  V.  Hooper,  3  Bro.  C.  C.  212,i2l3, 1  Ves.  Jr.  173  ;  Kinnoul  v. 
Money,  3  Svvanst.  208  n.;  Spear  v.  Ward,  20  Cal.  600,  674. 

40  Alexander  v.  Bouton,  .53  Cal.  15,  19  ;  Ward  v.  Spear,  20  Cal.  660, 
677. 

H.  &  W.  — 18. 


^134  KINDS   OF   SETTLEMENTS.  206 

41  Wilcox  V.  Todd,  fi{  Mo.  38S,  SS^  ;  VanHorne  v.  Everson,  13  Barb. 
5i(i,  ojO;  Bank  c.  Burns, -1(1  N.Y.  170.  IT.j;  Hawley  t'.  Bratiford,  9  Paige, 
ajo,  JOl ;  Siieidle  v.  Weishlee,  16  Pu.  St.  13^,  137. 

42  Huntington,  2  Brown  Pari.  C.  1  ;  2  White  &  T.  Lead.  Cas.  1010  ; 
Johns  ('.  Reanleii,  11  Md.  4fi.j,  4Hi) ;  Butterfield  r.  Stanton,  44  Miss.  Ij. 
35  ;  Wilcox  ('.  Todd,  G4  Mo.  3SS,  3S'J  ;  Shinn  v.  Smith,  7s) N.  C.  310. 

41    Olcaves  v.  Paine,  1  DeGex  J.  &  S.  87,  95,  «6 ;  infra,  n.  42. 
;4    Greiner,  58  Cal.  115,  122  ;  12  The  Reporter,  (M" ;  sujira,  n.  42. 
■I.->    Ilarrall,  31  N.  J.  Eq.  101, 102. 
4S    Aguilar,  5  Madd  414 ;  .Stewart  M.  &  D.  §  460. 

47  Huntingdon,  2  Brown  Pari.  C.  1  ;  2  White  &  T.  Lead.  Cas.  10:0, 
1015. 

48  Lancaster  v.  Evans,  10  Beav.  154,  266  ;  supra,  n.  47. 

49  Ayres  v.  Husted,  15  Coim.  504,  517 ;  Johns  v.  Rearden,  11  Md.  465, 
470 ;  Knight  r.  Whitehead,  26  Miss.  245.  246 ;  Fitch  v.  Cotheal,  2  Sand. 
Cli.  2:i,  30  ;  Miner  i'.  Graham,  24  Pa.  St.  491,  495;  Weeks  v.  Haas,  3 
Watts  &  S.  520,  523 ;  39  Am.  Dec.  30  ;  supra,  n.  42. 

50  Mofflt  xy.  Roche,  77  Ind.  48,  51 ;  Wilcox  v.  Todd,  64  Mo.  388  369  ; 
Sheidle  v.  Weishlee,  16  Pa.  Si.  i:i4,  137. 

51  Purvis  V.  Carstaphan,  73  N.  C.  575,  582, 

.".2  Spear  v.  Ward,  20  Cal.  660,  674  ;  Frickee  v.  Donncr,  ."5  Mich.  151 ; 
Smith  V.  Townsend,  25  N.  Y.  479,  483  ;  Bank  v.  Burns,  46  N.  Y.  170, 175 ; 
but  see  Lytle,  36  Pa.  St.  131, 133  ;  supra,  n.  40. 

53  Fitch  V.  Cotheal,  2  Sand.  Ch.  20,  30. 

54  Nelmcelnez  v.  Oahn,  3  Paige,  614. 

.55  Huntingdon,  2  Brown  Pari.  C.  1 ;  2  White  &  T.  Lead.  Cas.  1010  ; 
Rogers  v.  Adams,  66  Ala.  GOO,  602  ;  Coloman  v.  Sniitli,  65  Ala.  368  ; 
Cowler  V.  Marks,  53  Ala.  400;  47  Ala.  612;  Matthew.s  v.  Sheldon,  53 
Ala.  136;  Short  v.  Battle,  52  Ala.  456,  460  ;  Noithington  v.  Farber,  53 
Ala.  45,  47 ;  Davidson  v.  Lanier,  57  Ala.  318  ;  Riley  v.  Pierce,  50  Ala, 
93;  Hetherington  v.  Hixon,  46  Ala.  - 17,  2)3 ;  Minn  v  Giolian,  45  Ala. 
370,  375  ;  Wilkinson  v.  Cheatham,  45  Ala.  3:,7  ;'  Bibb  r.  Pope,  43  Ala.  190; 
200  ;  Collins  v.  Wassoll.  34  Ark,  17,  3! ;  Greiner,  58  Car.  115,  122  ;  Alex- 
ander V.  Bouton,  55  Cal.  15,  19  ;  Ha.ssey  v.  Willie,  55  (  .il.  525,  628  ;  Mar- 
low  V.  Barlew,  63  Cal.  450  ;  Ward  v  Spear,  20  Cal.  660,  674,  677  ;  Collins 
t>.  Dawley,  4  Colo.  138  ;  .34  Am.  Rep.  72 ;  Ayres  v.  Husted,  15  Conn.  504, 
517;  Ga.  Code  1873,  ?  1783;  Dunbar  v.  Mize,  5;$  Ga.  435,  437;  Clark  v. 
Valentine,  41  Ga.  143;  Edwards  i'.  Schoe:ieman,  104111.  278,285  ;  Doyle 
V.  Kelly,63  111.  594  ;  Brockschmidt  v.  Hagebrush,  72  111.  562  ;  Young  v, 
Gratf,  28  111.  20  ;  P<imeroy  v.  Manhattan,  40  111.  3  )8  ;  Schmidt  i'.  Postel, 
G!  111.  69,  60  ;  W.ashlnira  v.  Ro-s"h,  13  111.  App.  268,  272  ;  Ind.  R.  S.  18S1, 
?  5119;  Moffit  V.  Itiieh",  77  Ind.  48;  Buel  v.  Shum.an,  28  Ind.  461; 
Herron,  91  Ind.  27i  ;  U'Dailvt'.  Morris,  31  Ind.  Ill,  115;  Coates  p.  Mc- 
Kee,  26  Ind.  22i ;  Ellis  v.  Kenyon,  25  Ind.  134  ;  Hubbell  v.  Wright,  23 
Ind.  322,  324 ;  Kirk  v.  Tort,  13  Ind.  56  ;  Iowa  R.  C.  1880,  ?  2.506  ;  Low  v. 
Anderson,  41  Iowa,  476,  478  ;  Wolff  v.  Van  Meter,  23  Iowa,  297  ;  19 
Iowa,  134,  136  ;  Reii  v.  King,  23  Iowa,  500  ;  Green  v.  Scranage,  19  Iowa, 
461,  465;  Hobson,  8  Bush,  605;  Latimer  v.  Glenn,  2  Bush,  5:»,  613; 
Bowman  v.  Kaufman,  30  La.  An.  1021,  1025  ;  Keller  v.  Ruiz,  21  La.  An, 
283;  Sawyer  v.  Fernald,  59  Me.  500,  .502  ;  Ma  vo  t).  Hutchinson,  57  Me. 
546,  .547;  Eaton  v.  Mason,  47  Me.  132;  Comcgvs  v.  Clark,  44  Md.  108, 
111  ;  Hall  ti.  Eccleston,  37  Md.  510,  520;  Emei'ick  v.  Coaklev,  .^  Md. 
188,  100;  Hall  v.  Tay,  131  Mass.  192,  193 ;  Goodnow  r.  Hill,  125  Mass. 
587,  580  ;  Kenworthy  v.  Sawyer,  125  Mass.  28,  20 ;  Major  v.  Holmes,  123 
Mass.  108,  109 ;  Thacker  v.  Churchill,  118  Mass.  108,  109 ;  Heburn  v. 


207  KINDS   OF   SETTLEMENTS.  §  134 

Warner,  112  Mass.  271,  270 ;  Athol  v.  Fuller,  107  Mass.  437,  439  ;  WlUard 
V.  Eastham,  15  Gray,  3J.S,  3;Jo;  Bartlett,  4  Allen,  440,  443  ;  Frickee  v. 
Donner,  35  Mich.  151  ;  Smith  v.  Osborn,  33  Mich.  410 ;  Uenison  v.  Gib- 
son, 24  Mich.  187  ;  West  v.  Laravvay,  28  Mich.  4G4,  465 ;  De  Vries  v. 
Conklin,  22  Mich.  2.55, 25j,  260  ;  Watson  v.  Thurber,  U  Mich.  257  ;  Wolf 
V.  Binning,  3  Minn.  2ii2;  Klein  v.  McNamara,  54  Miss.  iO  ;  Vi.ser  v. 
Scruggs,  4a  Miss.  705  ;  Krwin  v.  Hill,  47  Miss.  665  ;  Foxworth  v.  Magee, 
44  Miss.  420;  lUitttrficM  v.  Stanton,  44  Miss.  15,  :ii ;  McGavock  v. 
Whitfield,  45  Miss.  452  ;  stone  v.  Montgomery,  35  Miss,  s  ;,  KM  ;  Knight 
V.  Whithead,  2tl  Miss.  245,  240  ;  Armstrong  v.  Stovall,  26  ISIiss.  275,  2«0  ; 
Wilcox  V.  Todd,  64  Mo.  3S8,  3S:) ;  Brown,  47  Mo.  i:;0  ;  4  Am.  Rep.  320  ; 
Thompson  v.  Ella,  58  N.  II.  4'.;0 ;  N.  J.  Rev.  1877,  p.  6:;7  ;  P'erdon  v. 
Miller,  34  N.  J.  Eq.-lO,  note,  eases  collected  ;  Merchant  v.  Thompson, 
34  N  J.  Eq.  7!;  Campbell  v.  Tompkins,  32  Is.  J.  Eq.  170;  Conover  v. 
Grover,  31  N.  J.  Eq.  53'J;  Harrall,  31  N.  J.  Eq.  101,  102;  Perkins  v. 
Elliott,  23  N.  J.  Eq.  526,  528;  Hanford  v.  Bociee,  20  N.  J.  Eq.  101 ; 
Woolsey  v.  Brown,  74  N.  Y.  82, 94  ;  BIcVey  v.  C,i;Ur"ll,  70  N.  Y.  2li5, 297  ; 
Com.  V.  Babcock,  42  N.  Y.  613  ;  Gosman,69  N.  Y.  S7  ;  25  Am.  Rep.  141 ; 
Bank  v.  Burns,  46  N.  Y.  170,  175  ;  Smith  v.  Towiiscnd,  25  N.  Y.  47!»,  483  ; 
Miller  v.  Loekwood,  32  N.  Y.  2!13  ;  Eadie  v.  Simmons,  26  j\\  Y.  9,  12 ; 
Bogert  V.  Gulick,  65  Barb.  322  ;  Hausse  v.  Dcwitt,  Ot  Barb.  53  ;  Todd  v. 
Amos,  60  Barb.  454  ;  Van  Home  v.  Evorson,  13  Barb.  Kf,,  hZO  ;  Hawley 
V.  Bradford,  9  Paige,  200,  201;  Neimcewiez  v.  Gahn,  3  Paige,  614; 
Loomer  v.  WTieelright,  3  Sand.  Ch.  135, 155  ;  Fitch  v.  Cotteal,  2  Sand. 
Ch.  2:1,  30 ;  Purvis  v.  Carstaphan,  73  N.  C.  575,  581 ;  Baldwin  v.  Snow- 
den,  11  Ohio  St.  203,  211 ;  Moore  v.  Fuller,  6  Oreg.  272 ;  25  Am.  Rep.  524  ; 
Haffev  V.  Carer,  73  Pa.  St.  432,  432;  Selden  r.  Jlerchants,  6!)  Pa.  St. 
424 ;  Har'maii  i'.  Ogborn,  54  Pa.  St.  120,  122  ;  Bavlcr  r.  Com.  40  Pa.  St. 
37,  40;  Hotz,  40  Pa.  St.  2i)lt,  212  ;  White,  36  i'a.  St.  134,  140  ;  l.vtle,  36  Pa. 
St.  131, 133;  Block  V.  Gal\vav,24  Pa.  St.  18  ;  Sheidle  v.  Weisklee,  16  Pa. 
St  134,  137  ;  Jamison,  3  Whart.  457  ;  Weeks  v.  Haas,  3  Watts  &  S.  520, 
523;  39  Am.  Dec.  39  ;  Duffy?'.  Insurance,  8  Watts  &  S.  413,  433  ;  31  Am. 
Dec.  536  ;  McFerrin  v.  White,  6  Cold.  4!):» ;  McCline  v.  Harris,  7  Heisk. 
379  ;  Rhodes  v.  Gibbs,  39 Tex.  4:?2  ;  Covington  v.  Burleson,  28  Tex.  3ft8  ; 
Hutchinson  r.  Underwood,  27  Tex.  255  ;  Shelby  v,  Burtis,  18  Tex.  644  ; 
MuUer  v.  Bayly,  21  Gratt.  521, 529. 


PART  in. 

ESTATES  OF  HlXSBAJfD  AXD  WIFE. 

Chap.  TII.    Estates  in  General,  g§  135-139, 

VIII.    Husband's  Estate  ix  His  Own  Prop- 
erty, \  140. 
IX.    Husband's  Estates  in  Wife's  Realty, 
^§  141-1(32. 
X.    Husband's  Estates  in  His  Wife's  PEr,- 
SONALTY,   \l  163-183. 
XI.    Wife's    Estates    in   Her  Oavn   Prop- 
erty, g?  184-196. 
XII.    Wife's  Equitable  Separate  Estate, 
■^  197-2113. 
XIII.    Wife's  Statutory  Separate  Estate, 

?t  217-243. 
XZY.    Wife's  Estate  in  Husband's  Realty 
Dower,  \\  244-300. 
XV.    Wife's  Estate  in  Husband's  Person- 
alty, \  301. 
XVI.    Husband  and  Wife's  Estates  in  Prop- 
erty OF  Both,  ^?  302-311. 
XVII.    Community  Property  of  Husband  and 
Wife,  ^?  312-319. 
XYIII.    Homestead  Property  of  Husband  and 
Wife,  jg  320-330. 


gg  135-136      ESTATES  OF  HUSBAjSD  AlfD  WIFE.  210 

CHAPTER  VII. 

ESTATES  OP   HUSBAND  AND  WIFE,    IN   GENERAL. 

{  135.  Term  "  estate,"  how  used. 

5  136.  Estates  in  realty  and  personalty. 

i  137.  General  effect  of  marriage  on  propertj-  rights. 

i  13S.  General  eflect  of  death  or  divorce. 

5  139.  Estates  divided  and  enumerated. 

g  135.  Torm  "estate,"  how  used.  —  The  word  -'estate" 
is  for  property  what  status  is  for  persons.  It  means  the 
relations  of  property  towards  the  person  or  persons  wlio 
have  riglits  in  it,  the  conditions  under  wliich  tliey  hold 
it.  And  the  scope  of  this  part  of  this  work  is  a  discus- 
sion of  tlie  sjjecial  conditions  arising  from  marriage 
under  which  husband  and  wife  hold,  or  the  special 
relations  in  which  they  stand  to,  their  own  and  each 
others  property. 

g  136.  Estates  in  realty  and  personalty.  —  The  term  "es- 
tate "  is  strictly  applicable  only  to  realty,^  for  under 
the  early  common  law  the  character  of  personalty  was 
such  that  personalty  could  not  be  held  for  a  term  or  for 
life,  but  only  absolutely.^  Such  a  narrow  meaning  of 
the  word  has,  however,  now  been  generally  adandoned, 
and  in  this  work  "  estate  "  in  property  means  simply 
the  conditions  under  which  the  property  is  held.^  For 
various  reasons  the  estates  of  husband  and  wife  in 
realty  have  difltbred  widely  from  those  in  personalty, 
and  in  particular  the  husband's  estate  in  his  wife's 
personalty  has  been  far  greater  than  his  estate  in  her 
realty ;  *  so  that  it  is  important  to  consider  whether 
realty  is  even  treated  as  personalty,  and  what  hap- 
pens if  realty  is  changed  into  personalty,  and  vice  versa. 

1.   Generally,  partnership  lands  bought  for  partner- 


211  ESTATES   OF   HUSBAND   AND   WIFE.  §  136 

ship  purposes  is  in  equity  treated  as  personalty,  and  a 
partner's  husband  or  wife  has  only  personalty  rights 
therein.5 

2.  Money  devised,  etc.,  to  be  "  laid  out  in  land  "  is  in 
equity  treated  as  land;^  and  land  devised,  etc.,  "to  be 
sold  "  is  in  equity  treated  as  personal  property.' 

3.  Tlie  rights  of  a  widow ^  or  a  widower-*  in  the  de- 
ceased's realty  are  not  clianged  after  they  have  once 
vested  by  the  conversion  of  tlie  realty  into  personalty. 

4.  When  a  wife's  lands  are  converted  into  personalty 
tvith  her  consent.,  and  the  purchase  money  is  paid  to  her 
or  her  husband,  he  has  the  same  rights  in  it  as  he  has 
in  her  otiier  money  ;  i"  but  any  prior  agreement  between 
them  as  to  the  disposition  of  such  money  may  be  en- 
forced in  equity ;  ^^  and  if  in  accordance  with  such  an 
agreement  such  money  has  been  invested  in  other 
land,  such  ot  lier  land  Avill  be  hei's,  subject  to  his  mari- 
tal rights,^^  unless  he  has  waived  them,i^  or  the  original 
land  was  separate  property."  If  the  purchase  money 
is  not  paid  but  is  secured,  as  by  notes,  and  the  notes 
are  payable  to  him,  they  ai"e  prima  facie  his  choses  in 
action,  ^^  if  payable  to  her,  or  to  her  and  him,  they  are 
pri7na  facie  her  choses  in  action. i"  If  the  purcliase 
money  is  neither  paid  nor  secured,  an  implied  promise 
is  raised  to  pay  him  and  her  in  her  right — it  is  her 
chose  i7i  action.'^'' 

5  When  a  wife's  lands  are  converted  into  personalty 
without  her  consent  in  legal  proceedings  (as  in  a  parti- 
tion suit  1"),  the  proceeds  are  in  equity  treated  as  realty," 
and  her  share  will  not  bo  paid  over  without  her  formal 
consent,^"  but  will  be  set  off  or  invested  in  land,  subject 
to  the  same  legal  rights  as  existed  in  tlie  original  lands.^' 

1  "Williams  Heal  Pr.jp.  16  ;  Boone  Keal  Prop.  ?  13. 

2  Williams  Personal  Prop.  7, 199. 

3  Ante,  I  l.iS     Compare  Boone  Real  Prop.  §  IX 


g  136  STATKS   OF   HUSBAND   AND   WIFE.  212 

4  Compare  ;>o«<,  ??  141-162,  with  post,  U  lfi3-183. 

5  1  CoUyer  Part.  ?  114,  cases  cited. 

R  Rweftapple  r.  Bindoii,  i  Vern.  53fi,  537;  Dodson  v.  Hay,  3  Brown 
C'h. -:0J.  40);  Fletcher  v.  Ashburner,  1  Brown  Ch.  497,  49!) ;  Davis  v. 
Mason,  1  Peters,  503,  507. 

7  Fletcher  v.  Ashburner,  1  Brown  Ch.  497,  499 ;  Siter  v.  McClana- 
han,  2  Gratt.  -80,  295. 

8  Mann,  50  Pa.  St.;375,  380. 

9  ToJlett  V.  Tyrer,  14  Sim.  125, 128  ;  Binscomb,  1  Johns.  Ch.  508,  511  ; 
Clipper  ('.  Livegood,  5  Watts,  113, 114  ;  Eberts,  55  Pa.  St.  110,  118. 

10  Kesner  v.  Trigp',  98  V.  S.  50,  54  ;  Humphries  v.  Harrison,  ."(O  Ark. 
7),  83,  84  ;  Fourtli  r.  Muthew,  15  Conn.  588;  Thomas  v.  Chicago,  55 
111.  103;  Lichtcnherger  v.  Graham,  50  Ind.  288;  Mahonev  v.  Bland,  14 
Ind.  176  ;  Pursley  v.  Hays,  22  Iowa,  11  ;  Crosby  v.  Otis,  32  Me.  256,  2.59 ; 
Savage  v.  King,  17  Me.  ;J01  ;  Chase  v.  Palmer,  25  Me.  Ml ;  Plummer  v. 
Jarman,44  Md.  632,637;  Sabel  r.  Slinglutf,  .52  Md.  1X1,  1.35;  Emerson 
V.  Cutler,  14  Pick.  119  ;  Tillman,  50  Mo.  40,  41  ;  Hutcliins  ?■.  Oilman,  9 
N.  H.  .359;  Johnson  v.  Bennett,  39  Barb.  237;  Martin,  1  Comst.  473; 
Hackett  v.  Shuford,  86  N.  C.  144,  149;  Benedict  v.  Montgomery,  7 
Watts  <fe  S.  238  ;  Chester  v.  Greer,  5  Humph.  26,  .34 :  Cox  r.  Scott,  9 
Baxt.  305.  312  ;  Cowden  v.  Pitts,  .58  Tenn.  59,  60  ;  Perkins  v.  Clements, 

1  Pat.  &  H.  141  ;  M'ard  t>.  Morril,  1  Chip.  D.  322,  329 ;  Barber  v.  Slade, 
30  Vt.  191  ;  Ellsworth  v.  Hinds,  5  Wis.  613,  626  ;  Hamlin  v.  Jones,  20 
Wis.  536,  539. 

11  Dula  V.  Young,  70  N.  C.  4.50,  453.  See  Barnet  v.  Goings,  8  Black, 
284  ;  Bowie  v.  Stonestreet,  6  Md.  418  ;  Dearing,  9  Paige,  283  ;  Temple  v. 
Williams,  4  Ired.  Eq.  39  ;  ante,  I  42  ;  post,  U  9i)-134. 

12  De  Lonis  v.  Sage,  13  Iowa,  146,  147 ;  Campbell  t'.  M'llliams,  12 
N.  H.  362,  366  ;  Davis,  60  Pa.  St.  118  ;  42  Pa.  St.  342. 

13  Post,  U  149,  159,  178. 

14  Tillman,  50  Mo.  40,  41.  See  Rice  v.  Hoffman,  35  Md.  344,  351; 
post,  i  209. 

15  McCullough  V.  Ford,  06  HI.  4.39;  Talbot  v.  Dennis,  1  Cart.  471 ; 
Dixon,  18  Ohio,  113. 

16  McCrary  v.  Foster,  1  Iowa,  271 ;  Peacock  r.  Pembroke,  4  Md- 
280,  282;  Taggart  v.  Bouldin,  10  Md.  104, 116;  Ramsdale  v.  Craighill,  9 
Ohio,  199. 

17  Higdon  v.  Thomas,  1  Hare  &  S.  1.39  ;  Peacock  v.  Pembroke,  4 
Md.  280,  282  ;  Fenick  v.  Flagg,  30  N.  J.  L.  25. 

18  Hughes,  1  Dev.  Eq.  118, 119  ;  post,  §  280. 

19  Rice  V.  Hoffman,  Xi  Md.  344,  351,  352  ;  Mann,  50  Pa.  St.  375,  .380. 
See  Athey  v.  Knotts,  6  Mon.  B.  24  ;  Ross  v.  Adams,  29  N.  J.  L.  160, 
Mathews  v.  Duryee,  45  Barb.  69;  Ellsworth  v.  Cook,  8  Paige,  643; 
Hillenbeck  v.  Bradt,  2  Paige,  316  ;  Finch,  Clarke,  5.38  ;  Brvan,  1  Dev. 
Eq.  47;  Hughes,  1  Dev.  Eq.  118;  Mebane  r.  Yancy,  3  Ired.  Eq.  88; 
Forbes  ?'.  Smith.  5  Ired.  Eq.  369;  Rives  i'.  Dudley,  3  Jones  Eq.  126; 
Jones  t\  Edwards,  8  Jones,  .3.J6  ;  Scull  v.  Jernigan,  2  Dev.  *  B.  Eq.  144  ; 
Stehman  v.  Huber,  21  Pa.  St.  260;  Com.  r.  Haffey,  fi  Piu  St.  :i48  ;  Lan- 
caster V.  Stauffer,  10  Pa.  St.  398  ;  Snavely  v.  Wagner,  3  Pa.  St.  275 ; 
Ferrie  v.  Com.  8  Serg.  &  R.  314 ;  Blocher  ? .  Carmonv,  1  Serg.  &  R. 
460 ;  Tilgman,  5  Whart.  44  ;  Weeks  j.  Haas,  3  Watts  &  "S.  520  ;  Mobley, 

2  Rich.  Eq.  56  ;  Wardlaw  v.  Gray,  2  Hill  Ch.  644.  Contra,  Jones  v. 
Plummer,  20  Md.  416,  421. 

20  Hiillenbeck  v.  Bradt,  2  Paige,  316  :  Finch,  Clarke,  ^S  ;  Hughes, 
1  Dev.  Eq.  118. 


213  ESTATES   OF   HUSBAND   AND   WIFE.       §^  137-138 

21  Cost  V.  Kose,  17  III.  276,  278  ;  De  Lonis  v.  Sage,  13  Iowa,  14fi,  147  ; 
Ciimpbell  V.  Wallace,  12  N.  H.  362,  36ti ;  Llppincott,  8  N.  J.  h.  88,  89  ; 
Uoble  V.  Cromwell,  26  Barb.  475,  480. 

J  137.  General  effect  of  marriage  on  the  property  rights 
of  the  parties. — Since  by  marriage  the  parties  become 
at  common  law  one  person,  and  the  wife's  identity  is 
merged  in  that  of  her  husband/  lie  naturally  stands  in 
her  place,  and  wliile  he  is  liusband  lias  possession  and 
control  of  all  property  wliicli  would  otherwise  have 
come  into  her  possession  and  control  ;2  but  she  has 
during  coverture  no  estate  in  his  property .^  So  that 
all  the  profits  of  the  lands  they  occui^ied,*  or  of  the 
money  or  chattels  they  got  into  their  possession,  be- 
longed to  the  husband.^  But  courts  of  equity  very 
soon  recognized  her  sejiarate  existence,^  and  preserved 
for  her  sole  and  separate  use  all  property  settled  upon 
her  for  this  purpose,'  and  statutes  have  now  been 
passed  almost  elsewhere,  destroying  wholly  or  par- 
tially the  husband's  rights  over  his  wife's  property 
during  coverture,^ 

1  Ante,i3S. 

2  Pott,  H  141-183. 

3  PosU  H  140,  244-30L 

4  Post,  5?  141-162. 

5  Post,  II  163-183. 

6  Ante,  U  8,  JiS,  42. 

7  Post,  Equitable  Separate  Estate,  ??  197-216. 

8  Post,  SUATUTORY  SEPARATE  ESTATE,  JJ  217-263. 

§  138.  Effect  of  death  or  divorce  on  estates  of  husband 
and  wife.  —  The  ettects  of  the  death  of  liusband  or  wife 
on  marriage  estates  or  property  rights  are  stated  in 
Stewart  on  "Marriage  and  Divorce," '  as  are  those  of 
the  various  forms  of  divorce,^  and  they  will  therefore 
be  referred  to  herein  but  incidentally.  Dower  and 
curtesy,  however,  although  they  vest  only  on  the 
death  of  husband  and  wife  respectively,  will  be  fully 
discussed. 


I  139  ESTATES  OF  HUSBAND  AND  WIFE.  214 

1  Stewart  M.  &  D.  U  452-175. 

2  Stewart  M.  &  D.  H  427-451, 

I  139.  Estates  of  husband  and  wife  divided  and  enumer- 
ated.—  The  estates  of  husband  and  wife  are  divided 
into  those  (1)  of  the  husband  in  his  own  property,  (2)  in 
his  wife's  realty,  including  curtesy ;  (3)  in  his  Avife's 
l^ersonalty  ;  (4)  of  the  wife  in  her  own  property,  includ- 
ing her  equity  to  a  settlement,  and  her  separate  equi- 
table and  separate  statutory  estates ;  (5)  in  her  hus- 
band's realty,  including  dower ;  (6)  in  lier  husband's 
personalty  ;  (7)  and  of  both  husband  and  wife  in  tlieir 
joint  and  common  estates,  including  jointure,  com.- 
munity,  entireties,  and  homestead. 


215  husband's  estate.  g  140 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

husband's  estate  in  his  own  property 

}  140.    a  husband's  estate,  how  limited  by  marriage. 

§  140.  A  husband's  estate,  how  limited  by  marriage. — 
A  man  holds  his  property  after  marriage  substantially 
as  before  ;  ^  during  his  life  no  present  estate  arises  in  it 
■for  his  wife,^  but  on  his  death  she  has  dower  or  other 
share  of  his  realty ,3  and  thirds  or  other  share  of  his 
personalty,*  which  estates  or  shares  of  hers  he  cannot 
defeat  by  deed  or  will.*  He,  however,  is  under  certain 
disabilities  as  respects  his  conveyances  to  her  ;  *  and  she 
is  a  quasi  creditor  of  his  for  her  support,'  and  may  de- 
feat his  conveyances  made  with  intent  to  defeat  her 
rights  ;  ^  so  in  Alabama  by  statute,  if  he  is  wasting  his 
estate  she  may  have  a  trustee  appointed  to  take  charge 
of  it,*  and  may  recover  money  lost  by  her  in  gamb- 
ling.^o 

1  Sims  V,  Rlcketts,  S5  Ind.  181. 

2  Poit,  WiFK's  Estates  i>f  Husband's  Property,  §?  244-301. 

3  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ?  461  ;  post,  U  244-300. 

4  Stewart  M.  &-D.  1462;  post,  I  301. 

5  Post,  U  268,  301  ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  U  -161,  462. 

6  Ante,  U  ■iO,  et  seq.  ;  99  et  seq. 

7  Ante,  ii  64,  74  ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  U  381.  473. 

8  .Stewart  M.  &  D.  |  381. 

9  Ala.  R.  C.  1876,  U  2723-2727. 
10  Ala.  R.  C.  1876.  ?  2132. 


g^  141-143  husband's  estate.  216 

CHAPTER  IX. 

husband's  estates  in  wife's  eeai-ty 

Art,  I.    In  General,  ??  141-145. 

II.    Estate  During  Coverture  Jure  Uxoris, 

g^  ->  4G-150. 
III.    Curtesy,  ??  151-162. 

Art.  I.    Husband's  Estates  in  Wipe's  Realty,  in 
General. 

?  141.  Under  common  law,  settlements,  and  Statutes. 

i  142.  During  coverture,  and  after  death  or  divorce. 

§  143.  In  wife's  estates  of  inheritance. 

i  144.  In  wife's  life  estates. 

i  143.  In  wife's  chattels  real. 

§  141.  Estates  under  common  law,  settlements,  and  stat- 
utes.—  111  detenniniiig  tlie  nature  of  the  estate  of  a 
husband  in  his  wife's  realty  it  is  first  necessary  to 
ascertain  whether  the  realty  in  question  is  held  as  at 
common  law,  under  a  settlement,  or  by  virtu©  of  a 
statute. 

g  142.  Estates  diu-ing  coverture,  and  after  death  or  di- 
vorce.—  In  determining  tlie  nature  of  the  estate  of  a 
husband  in  his  wife's  realty  it  is  necessary  to  ascertain 
whether  coverture  exists,  or  whether  it  has  been  dis- 
solved by  death  ^  or  divorce.*. 

1  It  Is  not  possible  to  absolutely  separate  ei?t."ites  during  cover- 
ture, and  estates  after  dissolution  :    See  Stewart  M,  «fe  D.  J  463,  n. 

2  Stewart  U.  &  T).  ?|  452-475. 
<J    Stewart  M.  &  T>.  U  427-451, 

§  143.  Husband's  estates  in  his  wife's  estates  of  inherit' 
ance.  —  At  common  law  a  liusband  has  during  cover- 
ture a  freehold  jointly  with  his  wife  In  her  estates  of 


217  husband's   ESTATE.  g§  144-145' 

inheritance  1  with  absolute  ownersliip  of  the  rents  and 
profits,^  and  if  he  survived  her  he  might  have  a  life 
estate  therein  called  curtesy .^  This  estate  during  cov- 
erture jure  uxoris^  and  curtesy  are  sej)arately  fully 
discussed.^ 

1  Barber  v.  Boot,  10  Mass.  260,  263. 

2  Shaw  V.  Partriage,  17  Vt.  626,  631. 

3  Watson,  13  Conn.  83,  86. 

4  Post,  U  146-150. 

5  Post,  li  151-162. 

I  144.  Husband's  estate  in  wife's  life  estates.  —  In  his 
wife's  life  estates — as,  for  example,  her  dower  in  the 
lands  of  a  former  husband*  —  a  husband  has,  at  com- 
mon law,  practically  the  same  estate  during  coverture 
as  he  has  in  her  estates  of  inheritance.^  If  her  estate 
were  for  her  life  it  terminated  on  her  death,  and  he  had 
nothing  but  emblements ;  ^  if  her  estate  were  for  the 
life  of  some  one  else,  he  took,  probably,*  as  special 
occupant ;  ^  but  in  no  case  could  he  have  curtesy .^  If 
before  marriage  she  had  demised  her  life  estate  for  the 
term  of  her  life,  her  interest  is  simply  a  chose  in  action.'' 

1  Doe  V.  Brown,  5  Blackf.  30!),  310;  Van  Note  v.  Downey,  28 
N.  J.  L.  219,  220,  223  ;  Mann,  50  Pa.  St.  375,  3sl  ;  Cheney  v.  Pierce,  ;18 
Vt.  515,  523  ;  Ellsworth  r.  Hinds,  5  Wis.  613,  626.  As  to  her  estate  of 
dower,  see  post,  U  244-300. 

2  Barber  v.  Root,  10  Mass.  260,  263 ;  Gray  v.  Mathias,  7  Jones 
(N.  C.)  502,  .t04  ;  ante,  i        ;  jmst,  H 

3  Bennett,  34  Ala.  .53  ;  Spencer  ?>.  Lewis,  1  Houst.  223. 

4  See  1  Bish.  M.  W.  ?  .532,  n. 

5  2  Kent  Com.  134  ;  1  Bright.  H.  &  W.  112,  113  ;  Schoul.  H.  &  W. 
?  417. 

6  Stead  v.  Piatt,  18  Beav.  50,  57  ;  Gray  v.  Mathias,  7  Jones  (X.  C.) 
502,  504  ;  jyjsl,  'i  157. 

7  Daniels  v.  Richardson,  22  Pick.  565,  570. 

I  145.    Husband's  estate  in  wife's  chattels  real.  —  In  his 
wife's  chattels  real — as,  for  example,  lands  leased  to  her 
before  i  or  after  '^  marriage  for  a  term  of  years  —  the  hus- 
band has  an  almost  absolute  estate  at  common  law.^ 
H.  &  W.-19. 


g  145  HUSBAND'S  ESTATE.  218 

He  may  sell,*  mortgage,^  or  otherwise  dispose  of  them 
during  his  life,^  and  they  are  liable  for  his  debts,"  but 
he  cannot  dispose  of  them  by  will.^  If  he  survive  his 
wife  his  ownership  is  as  absolute,^  as  his  ownership  of 
lier  personalty  in  possession.^"  But  if  slie  survives  and 
has  not  appropriated  tliem  to  his  separate  use  or  dis- 
posed of  them,"  and  his  creditors  have  not  had  them 
sold  for  his  debts, ^^  she  takes  them  absolutely ,^3  much 
as  she  does  her  choses  in  action  not  reduced  to  posses- 
sion during  coverture.^*  His  disposition  may  be  by 
any  act  to  take  effect  in  interest  during  his  life,'*  such 
as  an  under  lease  to  commence  after  liis  death  ;'8  if  he 
assigns  only  a  part,  the  remainder  will  survive  to  liis 
wife.'^  He  may  dispose  of  her  contingent  interest  in  a 
term,'8  provided  the  contingency  be  one  which  could 
possibly  happen  during  coverture.'^  He  may  forfeit 
the  term, 20  or  dissever  her  joint  tenancy.^^  The  same 
rule  applies  to  equitable  chattels  real,^'  and  he  takes  all 
chattels  real  subject  to  the  equities  against  her.^  Still 
his  rights  in  her  chattels  real  may  be  excluded  by  a 
settlement  of  them  to  her  sole  and  separate  use,'**  or  by 
a  separate  property  act.^ 

1  See  2  Bliwkst.  Com.  386  ;  1  Bish.  M.  W.  f  184,  cases  infra. 

2  Baxter  i-.  Smith,  6  Binn.  427,  429. 

3  Bell  H.  &  W.  102-110 ;  quoted  In  full  in  1  Bish.  M.  W.  ??  184-204  ; 
cases  infra. 

4  Meriwether  v.  Broker,  5  Litt.  254  ;  Allen  v.  Hooper,  50  Me.  3T1, 
374  ;  Turn.  <fe  R.  180  ;  Bates  v.  Dandy,  2  Atk.  207. 

5  Allen  V.  Hooper,  50  Me.  371,  374.    See  Clark  v.  Burgh,  9  Jur.  679  ; 
Pitt. 

6  Coke  LItt.  46  6,  351  a  ;  Roberts  v.  Polgrean,  1  Black.  H.  5.35. 

7  Allen  v.  Hooper,  50  Me.  371,  374.    See  Mitford,  9  Ves.  98  ;  Coke 
Litt.  351  a. 

8  Roberts  V.  Polgrean,  1  Black.  H.  535. 

n    Young  V.  Radford,  Hob.  3;  Mason  v.  Morgan,  2  Ad.  <fe  E.  30; 
Stewart  M.  &  D.  J  463. 

10  Post,  U  166-170. 

11  Roberts  v.  Polgrean,  1  Black.  H.  5:i5 ;  Young  v.  Radford,  Hob. 
3  ;  RUey,  19  N.  J.  Eq.  229. 


219  husband's  estate.  1 143 

12  1  Bish.  M.  W.  ?  204  ;  quoting  Bell  H.  &  W.  102-110. 

13  See  Turner,  1  Vern.  7  ;  Pitt  v.  Hunt,  1  Vern.  18  ;  Coke  Litt.  46  6, 
300  a,  351  a  ;  1  Kob.  Abridg.  345  ;  Stewart  M.  &  I).  J  460. 

14  Post,  l\  171-176. 

15  1  Bish.  M.  W.  §  192,  quoting  Bell  H.  &  W.  ??  102-110. 

16  Tlieobald  v.  Duffay,  9  Mod.  102. 

17  Sym.  Cro.  Ellz.  33 ;  1  Rob.  Abridg.  344  ;  Moor.  395. 

18  See  Shaw  v.  Stewart,  1  Ad.  cfe  E.  300  ;  Theobald  v.  Dufifay,  9 
Mod.  102  ;  (Jhundos  v.  Talbot,  2  P.  Wms.  G08. 

19  Duberly  v.  Day,  16  Beav.  33,  43  ;  5  H.  L.  Cas.  388. 

20  Plow.  2G1  ;  Coke  Litt,  331  a. 

21  Coke  Litt.  185  6  ;  Plow.  41S. 

22  Tudor  v.  Samyne,  4  Myliie  &  C.  380  ;  Pitt,  Turn.  &  R.  180 ;  Jack- 
sou  ('.  Parker,  Ami).  6S7  ;  Clark  v.  Burgh,  2  Colly.  C.  C.  221. 

23  Rawle  V.  Chichester,  Arab.  71') :  Mitford,  t  Ves.  98  ,  Moody  v. 
Matthews,  7  Ves.  183  ;  Winslow  v.  Tighe,  2  Brod.  &  B.  204 ;  Stubbs  v 
Roth,  2  Brod.  &  B.  553. 

24  Tullet  V.  Armstrong,  4  Mvlne  &  C.  395  ;  Turner,  1  Vern.  7 ; 
Draper,  2  Freem.  29 ,  Tudor  v.  Samyne,  2  Vern.  270  ;  post,  U  197-216. 

25  Post,U-lVl-1i3. 


Abt.   II.  —  Husbajjd's   Estate   During   Coverture 
Jure  Uxoris. 

I  146.  Husband's  estate  during  coverture  defined. 

J  147.  Incidents  of  the  estate. 

§  148.  Wife's  estates  which  are  subject  to  this  estate. 

1  149.  Effect  of  settlements  on  this  estate. 

2  150.  Effect  of  statutes  on  this  estate. 

§  146.  Husband's  estate  during  coverture  in  Ms  wife's 
lands  defined.  —  At  common  law  a  husband  holds  dur- 
ing coverture!  in  right  of  his  wife,' she  being  merged 
in  him,3  all*  her  lands  in  possession,^  and  owns  the 
rents  and  profits  thereof  absolutely.^  This  is  called  his 
freehold  estate ./wre  uxoris;'^  it  is  often  said  to  be  an  es- 
tate for  the  joint  lives  of  the  hu.sband  and  wife,*  but 
this  is  a  mistake  as  it  terminates  with  absolute  divorce.' 
It  differs  from  curtesy  initiate  in  tliat  it  is  a  vested  i° 
estate  in  possession,^!  while  curtesy  initiate  is  a  contin- 
gent i^  future  estate,!^  it    is  independent  of    birth  of 


g  146  husband's  estate.  220 

issue,'*  is  held  in  riglit  of  the  wife,'^  and  is  not  added  to 
•  or  diminished  wlien  curtesy  initiate  arises.'^ 

1  Wright,  2  Md.  42D,  453,  4M  ;  Rice  v.  Hoffman,  35  Md.  344,  349,  350  ; 
Barber  v.  Root,  10  Mass.  2()0, 263  ;  infra,  n.  9. 

2  Wright,  2  Md.  42:),  453  ;  Porter  ?•.  Bowers,  55  Md.  213,  215. 
•i    Lancaster  v.  Stouffer,  10  Pa.  St.  3<J8,  399  ;  ante,  i  38. 

4  Post,  i  148. 

5  See  Baker  v.  Floumoy,  5S  Ala.  650  ;  Osborne  v.  Edwards,  II 
N.  J.  Eq.  73  ;  Gentry  v.  Wagstaff,  3  Dev.  270  ;  cases  infra,  n.  7. 

6  Harcourt  r.  Wyman,  3  E.t.817;  Beaver  v.  Lane,  2  Mod.  217; 
Nunn  11.  Givhaii,  45  A  hi.  370,  376;  Chancey  v.  Strong,  2  Root,  3H9; 
Haralson  v.  Bridges,  14  III.  37,  ;«  ;  Bailey  v.  Duncan,  4  Mon.  260; 
Edrington  v.  Harper,  3  Marsh.  J.  J.  360  ;  Babb  v.  Perlev,  1  Me.  6,  8  ; 
■Clapp  ('.  Stoughton,  10  Pick.  463  ;  Barber  r.  Root,  10  Mass.  260,  263; 
Burleigh  r.  Coffin,  22  N.  H.  118,  128  ;  Van  Note  i-.  Downey,  28  N.  J.  L. 
•219,  223 ;  Decker  v.  lavingston,  15  Johns.  47.),  482 ;  Lucas  r.  Rickerieli, 

1  Lea,  726,  72S  ;  Dold  v.  Geigor,  2  Gratt.  98, 116  ;  Shaw  r.  Partridge,  17 
Vt.  626,  631  ;  post,  I  147. 

7  See  Clifton ,  5  Coke,  75  ;  Kingham  v.  Lee,  15  Sim.  .•?n6 ;  Pol.yblank 
t'.  Hawkins,  1  Doug.  329;  Harcourt  v.  Wyman,  3  Ex.  817  ;  Robertson 
V.  Norris,  11  Q.  B.  916  ,  Elliott  v.  Teal,  5  Sawy.  249,  252  ;  Cheek  v.  Wal- 
drum,  25  Ala.  152  ;  Bishop  v.  Blair,  36  Ala.  80  ;  Pliari.s  v.  Leachman  20 
Ala.  662;  Nunn  v.  Givhan,  45  Ala.  370,  376;  Eaton  v.  Whitaker,  13 
Conn.  222  ;  Chancer  v.  Strong,  2  Root,  369  ;  Rovston,  21  Ga,  161  ;  Kib- 
bev  ">.  Williams,  5s"ril.  ;'0,  31  ;  Haralson  v.  Bridges,  14  III.  37,  38  ;  But- 
terfleld  v  Bcall,  3  Ind.  2(i3,  20i:  ;  Junction  %\  Harris,  9  Ind.  184  ;  Mont- 
gomery V  Tate,  12  Ind.  015  ;  (Jregory  v.  Kord,  5  Mon.  B.  471  ;  Allen  v. 
Hooper,  50  Me.  371,  373  ;  Bealc  v.  Knowlcs,  45  Me.  479  ;  Slooro  v.  Kich- 
ardson,  37  Me.  438  ;  Tr:is!<  r.  Patterson,  29  Me.  499  ;  Austin  r,  Stevens, 
24  Me.  520  ;  Porter  v.  Bowers,  55  .Md.  213,  215  ;  Rice  v.  lleirni-m.  -io  J[d. 
344,  349  ;  Mutual  v.  Deal,  IS  Md.  26,  47  ;  Wright,  2  Md.  429,  4.V!  ;  P.arher 
V.  Root,  10  Mass.  260,  2(.l ;  M elvin  v.  Proprietors,  16  Pick.  161,  16.",; 
Clapp  V.  Stoughton,  10  Pick.  463  ;  Croft «.  Wilbar,  7  Allen,  248  ;  Bayn- 
ton  V.  Finnall,  12  Miss.  193;  (ionsolis  v.  Donchouquette,  1  Mo.  6(i6 ; 
.Schneider  v.  Staihr,  20  Mo.  269;  Burleigh  v.  Coflin,  22  N.  H.  118,  125  ; 
^'ir■h()lls  J'.  O'Neill,  ION.  J.  Eq.  88.  90;  Den  v.  cniinbv,  3  N.  J.  L.  985; 
Van  .Note  r.  Downey,  2S  N.  J.  L.  219,223;  Jackson  v.  Caines.  20  Johns. 
301  ;  Decker  v.  Livingston,  15  Johns.  479,  4M2  ;  Shallenberger,  25  Pa. 
St.  152  ;  Lancaster  r.  Stouffer,  10  Pa.  St.  398,  3;)9  ;  Starke  v.  Harrison, 
5  Rich.  7  ;  Coleman  v.  Satterfi'  id,  2  Head.  259  ;  Guion  v.  Anderson,  8 
Humph.  298,  335;  Dold  v.  Geiger,  2  Gratt.  98,  116;  Degarnette  v. 
Allen,  f  Gratt.  4'i9,  514  ,  Evans  v.  Kingberrv,  2  Rand.  120, 131 ;  Shaw 
V.  Partridge,  17  Vt.  626,  631  ;  Stroebe  v.  Fehl,  22  Wis.  337,  342. 

8  Rice  V.  Hoffman,  35  Md.  344,  349  ;  cases  supra,  n.  7. 

I  Wright,  2  Md.  429,  455  ;  Barber  v.  Root,  10  Mass.  260,  2G3  ;  Stew- 
art M.  &  D.  §  443. 

10  Van  Note  v.  Downey,  28  N.  J.  L.  219,  222  ;  Mann,  50  Pa.  St.  375, 
381 ;  ante,  I  22. 

11  Post,  1 147. 

12  Porter,  27  Gratt.  599,  606  ;  post,  ?  162  ;  ante,  ?  22. 

13  Post,  ?  15S. 

14  Wright,  2  Md.  429, 454  ;  supra,  n.  7. 

15  Elliott  V.  Teal,  5  Sawy.  249,  252  ;  post,  I  147. 


221  husband's  estate.  §  147 

16  Kibbey  v.  Williams,  58  111.  30,  31;  Winne,  2  Lims.  21,  2i;  jjost, 
§158- 

§  147.  Incidents  of  husband's  estate  during  coverture 
jure  uxoris. — The  husband  is  seized  during  coverture 
in  the  lands  of  his  wife  jointly  with  her,i  he  cannot 
aver  that  he  alone  is  seized  in  her  right, ^  so  that  while 
he  can  sue  alone  for  severed  personalty,^  or  for  rents 
and  profits,*  he  must  join  her  in  an  ejectment  suit  for 
the  lands, 5  or  in  any  suit  depending  on  seisin.^  Tiie 
rents  and  i^rofits  accruing  during  coverture  are  his 
absolutely  ; '  he  may  sue  for  them  alone  ;  ^  and  arrears 
belong  to  his  representatives  on  his  death,^not  to  her.'*' 
But  subject  to  his  beneficial  enjoyment  during  cover- 
ture the  ownership  remains  in  her,"  and  on  dissolution 
of  the  marriage  goes  to  her  or  her  heirs  discharged 
entirely  of  his  estate.'^  He  can  alone  convey  his 
estate,'^  but  his  conveyance  carries  only  his  interest,^* 
and  limitations  begin  to  run  against  her  estate  as  soon 
as  the  marriage  is  dissolved .'^  He  may  lease  it,'^ 
while  a  lease  by  her  is  worthless,"  but  the  lease  ends 
with  the  coverture'^  (tlaough  his  tenant  may  have 
emblements"),  and  thereafter  is  not  binding  on  her, 
even  though  she  lias  joined  in  it,^"  unless  she  is  a  party 
and  has  ratified  it;"^'  whether  .statute  32,  Hen,  YIII., 
ch.  28,  is  in  force  in  the  United  States  seems  doubtful.^^ 
It  is  liable  for  his  debts,-^  but  only  his  usufructuary 
interest  during  coverture.^*  He  has  a  right  to  reason- 
able estovers.^  Thougli  he  has  no  right  to  commit 
waste, ^  as  his  Aviie  has  no  remedy  against  him,"  this 
right  has  been  alleged  ;  ^s  but  it  is  well  settled  that  his 
assignee  may  be  sued  for  waste.'®  On  his  wife's  death 
his  estate  ceases,  and  he  has  no  riglit  to  compensation 
for  iinprovements,3°  but  he  has  a  right  to  emblements.'^ 
He  may  bo  barred  by  limitations  ;3^  but  not  of  course 
by  any  act  of  the  wife  during  coverture.^^ 


g  147  .  husband's  estate.  222 

1  Moore  V.  Vinter,  12  Sim.  161,  164  ;  Frosdick  v.  Sterling,  2  Mod. 
269,  270;  Oanvickard  v.  Sidney,  Hob.  1,  2  ;  Weller  v.  Baker,  2  Wils. 
414,  42:i,  424  ;  Melvin  v.  Proprietors,  16  Pick.  161,  16.i,  166  ;  NichoHs  v. 
O'Neill,  10  N.  J.  Eq.  88,  90  ;  Battle  v.  Mitchell,  7  Watts,  113,  115  ; 
Guion  V.  Anderson,  8  Humph.  298,  325;  Weisinger  v.  Murphy,  2 
Head,  674  ;  Stroebe  v.  Fehl,  22  Wis.  337,  342. 

2  Melvin  v.  Proprietors,  16  Pick.  161, 165  ;  Stroebe  v.  Fehl,  22  Wis. 
337,  342. 

3  Fairchild  v.  Chaustelleu.x,  8  Watts,  412,  413  ;  post, 

4  Decker  v.  Livingston,  15  Johns.  479,  482  ;  Dold  v.  Geiger,  2  Gratt. 
98,  116. 

5  Weller  v.  Baker,  2  Wils.  414, 423, 424  ;  Battle  v.  Mitchell,  7  Watts, 
113,  11.5. 

6  Wyatt?'.  Simpson,  8  W.  Va.  394. 

7  Lucas  V.  Rickerich,  1  Lea,  726,  728  ;  (inte,  ?  146,  n.  6 

8  Supra,  n.  4. 

9  See  cases  ante,  ?  146,  n.  6. 

10  Shaw  V.  Partridge,  17  Vt.  626,  631. 

11  Infra,  notes  12,  14,  15, 18. 

12  Stroebe  r.  Fehl,  22  Wis.  337,  340.  See  Rogers  v.  Brooks,  30  Ark. 
612  ;  Junction  v.  Harris.  9  Ind.  184  ;  Clarke,  79  Pa.  St.  376  ;  cases  ante, 
I  142,  n.  7. 

13  Allen  v.  Hooper,  50  Me.  371,  373.  See  Butterfleld  v.  Beall,  3  Ind. 
203,  206;  Trask  v.  Patterson,  29  Me.  499  ;  NichoUs  v.  O'Neill,  10  N.  J. 
Eq.  88,  90. 

14  Evans  v.  Kingberry,  2  Rand.  120, 131. 

15  Miller,  1  Meigs,  484. 

16  Harcourt  v.  Wyman,  3  Ex.  817  ;  Eaton  v.  Whitaker,  18  Conn. 
222. 

17  Allen  v.  Hooper,  50  Me.  371,  373  ;  Murray  v.  Emmons,  19  N.  H. 
4S.3,  486  ;  Ross  v.  Adams,  28  N.  J.  L.  160,  162,  16.3. 

18  Jackson  v.  Holloway,  7  Johns.  81,  85,  86. 

19  Rowney ,  2  Vern.  322 ;  Gould  v.  Webster,  1  Vt.  409. 

20  George  v.  Goldsby,  23  Ala.  326. 

21  Toler  v.  Slater,  Law  R.  3  Q.  B.  42,  45,  46. 

22  Alex.  Brit.  Stats,  pp.  321-326  ;  1  Bish.  M.  W.  ??  550-565. 

23  Nicholls  v.  O'Neill,  10  N.  J.  Eq.  88,  PO.  See  Cheek  v.  Waldrum, 
2.")  Ala.  1.52  ;  MontKonu  ry  v.  Tate,  12  Ind.  615  ;  Williams  v.  Morgan,  1 
Litt.  168  ;  Beelc  r.  Kimwles,  45  Me.  479  ;  Sale  v.  Saunders,  24  Miss.  "24  ; 
Schneider  v.  Smilir,  20  3Io.  269  ;  Brown  v.  Gale,  5  N.  H.  416;  Perkins 
■J'.  Cottrell,  l",  liiub.  446  ;  Canby  v.  Porter,  12  Ohio,  79 ;  Mitchell  r. 
Sevier,  9  Humph.  146. 

24  Litchfield  v.  Cadworth,  15  Pick.  23. 

25  Armstrong  v.  Wilson,  60  111.  226,  228. 

28  Stroebe  v.  Fehl,  22  Wis.  337,  343. 

27    Babb  v.  Perley,  1  Me.  6,  9  ;  Davis  v.  Gilliam,  5  Ired.  Eq.  308,  309. 
23    Clifton,  6  Coke,  175  ;  Ware,  6  N.  J.  Eq.  117, 121 ;  Degarnette  r. 
Allen,5Gratt.  499,  614. 

29  Babb  v.  Perley,  1  Me.  6, 10  ;  Davis  v.  Gilliam,  5  Ired.  Eq.  sas, 
309  ;  Degarnette  v.  Allen,  5  Gratt.  499,  514. 


223  husband's  estate.  ■  ^g  148-150 

30  Washburn  ?'.  Sprout,  10  JIass.  449  ;  Runey  v.  Edwards,  15  Mass. 
291  ;  Burleigh  v.  Coffin,  22  N.  H.  118,  125,  12ti  ;  Marable  v.  Jordan,  5 
Humph.  417,  418  ;  ante,  i  131  ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  \l  460,  473. 

31  Bennett,  34  Ala.  53,  55. 

32  Kibbey  1'.  Williams,  53  111.  .30,  31.    Compare  ;3os<,  ?  IS^.  n.  18. 

33  Den  V.  Quinby,  3  N.  J.  L.  9S5. 

\  148.  What  estates  of  wife  are  subject  to  this  estate. — 
This  estate  in  riglit  of  his  wife  arises  in  favor  of  tlie 
husband  in  all  her  common-law  estates  in  possession  ;i 
he  has  a  joint  seisin  ^  with  her  in  all  estates  of  which 
she  is  seized,^  whether  of  inheritance  or  for  life,*  and 
whether  several  or  joint.^  But  her  equitable  separate 
and  statutory  separate  estates  are  usually  not  in  any 
way  in  the  possession  or  control  of  her  husband  during 
coverture.^ 

1  Not  in  remainder  :  Gentry  v.  Wagstaff,  3  Dev.  270  ;  1  Bish.  M. 
W.  \  505,  n. 

2  Ante,  \  147,  n.  1. 

3  Compare posi,  5  155. 

4  Barber  v.  Root,  10  Mass.  260,  263  ;  Van  Note  v.  Downey,  28  N.  J. 
L.  219,  223  ;  ante,  I  144. 

5  Bishop  V.  Blair,  36  Ala.  80  ;  Royston,  21  Ga.  161. 

6  PoHi,  l\  149,  150. 

g  149.  Effect  of  settlements  on  the  husband's  estate  dur- 
ing coverture.  —  The  chief  object  of  a  settlement  to  the 
sole  and  separate  use  of  a  married  woman  is  to  exclude 
the  rights  of  her  husband  during  coverture, ^  and  all 
such  settlements  do  prevent  his  estate  jure  uxoris  from 
arising,^  although  they  may  leave  his  rights  after  her 
death  unaffected.^ 

1  Cooney  v.  Woodburn,  33  Md.  320,  326  ;  post,  ?  157. 

2  Post,  Equitable  Separatk  Estate,  \l  197-216. 

3  See  post,  §  157. 

I  150.  Effect  of  statutes  on  the  husband's  estate  during 
coverture.  —  The  chief  purpose  of  the  .separate  property 
acts  passed  in  all  States  where  the  common  law  once 
prevailed  was  to  free  the  property  of  wives  from  the 


gl51 


224 


marital  rights  of  their  husbands,  and  this  estate  jure 
uxot-is  is  now  almost  universally  abolished.^  Gener- 
ally, the  wife  is  enabled  to  hold  her  property  alone, 
free  from  the  husband  and  his  creditors,^  though  in 
Alabama  he  is  made  trustee  of  her  property  subject  to 
removal  for  unfitness.^  The  estate  is,  however,  a  vested 
one,*  and  cannot  be  destroyed  by  statute.* 

1  Posf,  ??  233,  243. 

2  Post,  Statutory  Separatk  Estate,  ??  217-243. 

3  Ala.  Code  1876,  §  2706 ;  Dent  v.  Slough,  40  Ala.  518,  523 ;  Bishop  d. 
Blair,  36  Ala.  80. 

4  Van  Note  v.  Downey,  8  N.  J.  L.  219,  222  ;  Mann,  50  Pa.  St,  375, 381. 


5    Ante,  ?  22 


Article  III.  —  Curtesy. 


I  151.  Definitions  of  curtesy. 

§  152.  Common-law  requisites  of  curtesy. 

?  153.  Marriage  necessary  to  give  curtesy. 

?  154.  Birth  of  issue  necessary  to  give  curtesy. 

§  155.  Seisin  of  wife  necessary  to  give  curtesy. 

i  156.  Death  of  wife  necessary  to  give  curtesy. 

I  157.  Property  in  which  curtes}'  exists. 

I  158.  Incidents  of  estate  of  curtesj-. 

I  159.  Barring  and  defeating  of  curtesj-. 

I  160.  Curtesy  under  statutes,  generally. 

?  161.  Efifect  of  married  women  acts  on  curtesy. 

?  162.  Retrospective  effect  of  statutes. 

g  151.  Definitions  of  curtesy.  —  At  common  law  curtesy 
is  the  estate  of  a  husband'  which  arises  out  of  such  of 
his  wife's  estates  of  inheritance  ^  as  she  is  seized  of  in 
fact  ^during  coverture,*  if  a  child  of  theirs  who  could 
inherit  such  estates  *  is  born  alive  before  her  death.' 
After  marriage,  seisin,  and  birth  of  such  child,  the  es- 
tate is  initiate^  or  contingent  on  the  death  of  the  wife  ;3 
after  such  death  it  is  conszcmmate'^'' — a  freehold  estate 
for  the  life  of  the  husband"  with  the  incidents  of  a 
conventional  life  estate.'^  Under  statutes  curtesy  may 
differ  from  curtesv  at  common  law  in   one  or  more 


225  CURTESY.  g  151 

re.sijec^s.'3  Livtleton's  definition  is :  "  Where  a  man 
taketh  a  wife  seized  in  fee  siuii:)le,  or  in  fee  tail  general, 
or  seized  as  lieir  in  tail  especial,  and  hatli  issue  by  the 
same  wife,  male  or  female,  born  alive,  albeit  tlie  issue 
after  livcth  or  dietli.  yet  if  the  wife  dies  tlie  husband 
shall  hold  the  land  during  his  life.''^'  Bishop's  is  : 
"  Tenancy  by  tlie  curtesy  arises  where,  after  a  marriage 
not  void  in  law,  and  if  voidable  not  actually  annulled 
by  judicial  sentence,  there  is  issue  of  the  marriage 
born  alive ;  then  if  the  husband  survives  the  wife,  he 
holds  for  his  life  the  real  estate  which  was  hers  in  actual 
possession  at  any  time  during  the  coverture,  and  which 
also  could  be  inherited  by  the  child  if  living  as  tenant 
by  the  curtesy  consummate ;  while  after  the  birth  of 
the  child  and  before  the  death  of  the  mother  he  sus- 
tains a  somewhat  similar  relation  to  it,  known  as  ten- 
ancy by  the  curtesy  initiate."  ^^  Other  definitions  are 
referred  to  in  a  note.'* 

1  Heath  v:  White,  5  Conn.  22S,  235.    Must  be  valid  marriage  to 
render  him  "  husband  " :  I'ost,  i  15:5. 

2  Kawlings  v.  Adams,  7  Md.  26,  M;  Stead  v.  Piatt,  18  Beav.  50; 
post.,  'i  157. 

3  Carpenter,  75  Va.  120,  134  ;  post,  §  155. 

4  McBaniel  v.  Grace,  15  Arlc.  4G5,  483 ;  post,  I  155. 

5  Coke  Litt.  40  a  ;  jiost,  i  154. 

6  Heath  v.  WMiite,  6  Conn.  22S,  236 ;  post,  i  154. 

7  Marsellis  v.  Thalhimer  2  Paige,  42. 

8  Kice  t>.  Hoffman,  35  Md.  344,  350  ;  pos<,  §  158. 

9  Porter,  27  Gratt.  503,  GOG  ;  2'ost,  \  156. 

10  Wheeler  v.  Hotchkiss,  10  Conn.  225,  230  ;  post,  I  158. 

11  Foster  r.  Marshall,  22  N.  H.  401,  493  ;  post,  I  loS. 

12  Rice  V.  Hoffman,  35  .Aid.  344,  343,  350  ;  post,  \  158. 

13  Post,  \  160. 

14  Litt.  ?  35. 

15  1  Bish.  M.  \V.  \  473. 

16  1  Greenl.  Cruise,  130, 140  ;  2  Blackst.  Com.  120, 127  ;  4  Kent  Com 
27,  23;  Boone  Keal  Prop.  \A\;\  Wash.  Real  Prop.  148,  143;  Orr  c. 
Hollidays,  3  Mon.  B.  53;  Da.v  v.  Cochran,  24  Miss.  261,274;  Furguson 
V.  Tweedy,  56  Barb.  168,  172,  173  ;  Billings  v.  Baker,  28  Barb.  345  ; 
Statutes  cited  post,  1 160. 


g  152  CUBTEST.  226 

g  152.  Common  law  requisites  of  curtesy.  —  At  common 
law  there  are  said  to  be  four  requisites  of  curtesy  :  ^ 
(1)  marriage  ;  ^  (2)  birth,  of  issue  capable  of  inheriting  ;3 
(3)  seisin  of  the  wife  during  coverture  ;  ••  (4)  death  of  the 
wife.^  Tliese  requisites  need  not  all  exist  at  the  same 
time.^  Thus,  birth  of  issue  before  the  marriage  is  suffi- 
cient, if  the  issue  is  legitimated  by  the  marriage.'  So 
seisin  during  coverture  is  sufficient  tliough  disseisin 
occurs  before  birth  of  issue.^  So  birth  of  issue  is  suffi- 
cient, thougli  such  issue  dies  before  seisin.'  And  cur- 
tesy initiate  exists  before  the  death  of  the  wife.'"  It  is 
not  proper  to  say  that  curtesy  initiate  arises  on  the 
birtli  of  issue,^!  for  it  really  arises  on  birth  of  issue  or 
seisin  which  ever  first  takes  place.''  The  marriage 
must  exist  when  the  wife  dies,'^  for  an  absolute  divorce 
destroys  curtesy.'*  Another  requisite  is  that  the  hus- 
band be  capable  of  holding  real  estate,'^  not,  for 
example,  an  alien.'^ 

1  Menvil,  13  Coke,  19,  23  ;  Hunter  v.  Whitworth,  9  Ala.  965,  967  ; 
McDaniel  v.  Grace,  15  Ark.  465,  483  ;  Wheeler  ii.  Hotclikiss,  10  Conn. 
225,  2:30;  Stewart  !'.  Boss,  60  Miss.  776,  788;  Jackson  v.  Johnson,  I 
C'owen,  74,  95  ;  15  Am.  Dec.  433  ;  Furguson  v.  Tweed.v,  43  N.  Y.  .M3  ;  56 
Bnrb.  168  ;  Carpenter  v.  Garrett,  75  Va.  129,  133;  Winkler,  18  W.  Va. 
455,  4.57.    See  Definitions,  ante,  1 151. 

2  Post,  i  153. 

3  Comer  v.  Chamberlain,  6  Allen,  166, 169  ;  post,  i  154. 

4  McDaniel  v.  Grace,  15  Ark.  46.5,  483 ;  post,  1 155. 

5  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ?  463  ;  post,  ?  156. 

6  See  Menvil,  13  Coke,  19, 23  ;  Hunter  v.  Whitworth,  9  Ala.  965, 969  ; 
Comer  v.  Chamberlain,  6  Allen,  166,  169;  Jackson  v.  Johnson,  5 
Cowen,  74,  95  ;  Coke  Lltt.  30  a. 

7  Hunter  v.  Whitworth,  9  Ala.  966,  969  ;  post,  ?  153. 

8  Comer  v.  Chamberlain,  6  Allen,  166,  169  ;  post,  ?  155. 

9  Jackson  v.  Johnson,  5  Cowen,  74,  95;  15  Am.  Dec.  433;  nost, 
I  154. 

10  Stewart  v.  Ross,  50  Miss.  776,  789  ;  jtost,  U  166,  158. 

11  Ayite,  i  151  ;  Bishop'.s  definition. 

12  Gibbins  v.  Eyden,  Law  R.  7  Eq.  371,  376. 

13  Post,  ?  153. 

14  Stewart  M.  &  D.  J  443  ;  post,  I  159. 

15  1  Greenl.  Cruise,  144  ;  Boone  Real  Prop.  I  49. 


227  CURTESY.  §?  153-154 

16  Hatfield  v.  Sneden,  54  N.  Y.  280,  235.  See  Fosa  v.  Crisp,  20  Pick. 
121  ;  Keese  v.  Waters,  4  Watts  &  S.  145. 

g  153,  Marriage  necessary  to  give  curtesy.  —  A  man  has 
curtesy  in  a  woman's  lands  only  as  her  husband,* 
though  in  asserting  his  rights  he  may  prove  his  mar- 
riage by  cohabitation  and  repute.^  The  marriage  be- 
tween them  must  be  valid,-'  this  term  including  a 
voidable  marriage  not  decreed  void  before  the  wife's 
death  ;  ^  there  is  no  curtesy  if  the  marriage  were  void,* 
this  term  including  a  voidable  marriage  duly  avoided.^ 
The  marriage  may  take  place  after  tlie  birth  of  issue  if 
such  issue  is  thereby  legitimated.'  But  it  must  exist  at 
the  time  of  tlie  wife's  death,  for  a  divorce  a  vinculo 
destroys  curtesy.^ 

1  1  Cruise  Dig.  107  ;  1  Wasli.  Real  Prop.  130  ;  Boone  Real  Prop. 
?  45 ;  ante,  ?  151. 

2  Stewart  M.  &  D.  U  129, 136. 

.3  See  fully  Stewart  M.  &  D.  U  45,  et  seq. 

i  Stewart  M.  <fe  D.  ?  51. 

5  Stevvart  M.  &.  D.  ?  50. 

6  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ?  147. 

7  Hunter  v.  Wliitworth,  0  Ala.  0C5,  960. 

8  Stewart  M.  &  D.  5  443 ;  post,  i  153. 

I  154.  Birth  of  issue  necessary  to  give  curtesy.  —  At 
common  law  there  is  no  curtesy  without  Inrth  of  issue.* 
The  issue  must  be  born  alive,^  but  if  so  born  it  makes 
no  diftbrcnce  whether  it  lives  an  hour  or  to  old  agc.^ 
It  must  be  born  during  the  life  of  its  mother  ;  *  a  deliv- 
ery by  a  Csesarean  operation  after  the  mother's  death 
is  not  sutficient.*  It  must  be  capable  of  becoming  heir 
to  the  estate;*  the  birth  of  a  girl  would  not  give  cur- 
tesy in  an  estate  tail  male.'  It  may  be  born  after  dis- 
seisin,^  or  die  before  seisin.^  Its  birth  may  be  proved 
by  its  father.!"  Statutes  in  some  States  have  done  away 
with  this  requisite." 


§155  CURTESY.  228 

1  Winkler,  IS  W.  Va.  455,  466.  See  Paine,  8  Colce,  34 ;  Heatla  v. 
Wliite,  5  Conn.  2JS,  236  ;  Rvan  r.  Freeman,  36  Miss.  175  ;  Day  r'.  Cocli- 
rane,  24  Miss.  261  ;  Porcii  v.  Fries,  4  N.  J.  Eq.  204  ;  Marsellis  v.  Thal- 
hiiner,  2  Paige,  ;55,  42  ;  ante,  \  152. 

2  Colie  Litt.  .30  a,  60  6  ;  2  Blaclist.  Com.  101 ;  supra,  n.  1. 

3  Heath  v.  Wliite,  5  Conn.  22S,  2.36. 

4  2  Blackst.  Com.  127,  12^  ;  1  Greenl.  Cruise,  143 ;  supra,  n.  1. 

5  Marsellis  v.  Thalhimer,  2  Paige,  .35,  42. 

6  Coke  Litt.  40  a ;  Poreli  )'.  Fries,  4  N.  J.  Eq.  204  ;  stq^ra,  n.  1. 

7  Paine,  8  Coke,  .34,  35  b  ;  Coke  Litt.  29  6. 

8  Johnson  v.  Jackson,  5  Cowen,  74,  95  ;  15  Am.  Dec.  4;!3. 

9  Comer  r;.  Cham..erlain.  6  Allen,  166,  16;). 

10  Jones  V.  Ricketts,  31  Law  J.  Ch.  75.3. 

11  Dubs,  31  Pa.  St.  154  :  post,  \  160. 

\  155.  The  seisin  of  the  wife  necessary  to  give  curtesy.  — 
The  word  ".seisin"  applies  only  to  freehold  estates.^ 
One  who  is  in  actual  possession  of  real  estate,  claiming 
a  freehold, 2  or  one  who  though  not  in  actual  possession 
has  the  immediate  right  to  pos.session  by  deed^  or  judi- 
cial judgment,'  is  seized  in  fact;  one  who  has  a  mere 
right  of  possession  in  law,  as  an  heir,^  or  in  equity,  as 
one  who  has  a  right  to  have  a  trust  declared,*  is  seized 
in  law  or  in  equity.  The  wife's  seisin  to  give  curtesy 
must  be,  (1)  seisin  in  fact ;  (2)  it  must  be  benejicial  ; 
(3)  it  must  be  sole;  but  (4)  it  may  exi.st  at  any  time 
during  coverture. 

1.  Seisin  in  fact  is  necessary  to  give  curtesy,'  though 
this  rule  has  been  somewhat  relaxed,"  and  is  not  ap- 
plicable to  wild  lands.'  Thus,  j)ersonal  possession ,1" 
or  pos.session  through  one's  agent,"  trustee,'^  lessee.^^ 
or  co-parcener,"  or  constructive  possession  given  by 
deed, '5  or  judgment  in  ejectment,^*  is  sufficient  seisin  ; 
but  there  is  no  curtesy  in  the  estate  of  an  heir  before 
entry,!'  qj-  qJ  q^c  who  has  to  resort  to  law  or  equity  to 
obtain  possession, '^  as  when  it  is  held  under  claim  of 
adverse  title.''  IS^or  can  a  husband  have  curtesy  in  his 
wife's  remainders,^''  unless  the  intermediate  estate  deter- 
mines, as  when  it  vests  in  her  and  merges,^'  or  the  life 


229  CTJETEST.  g  155 

tenant  dies,^^  during  coverture ;  for  otherwise  there  is 
no  seisin  in  fact.^ 

2.  The  wife's  seisin  must  be  beneficial ;^^  there  is  no 
curtesy  in  a  wife's  hare  legal  estate,-^  or  if  there  is  it  is 
itself  a  bare  legal  estate.^* 

3.  The  wife's  seisin  must  be  sole;  there  is  no  curtesy 
of  property  in  which  she  is  joint  tenant,^^  though  there 
is  when  she  is  tenant  in  common,^  or  coparcener.^^ 

4.  The  wife  must  be  seized  during  coverture,^  but  not 
necessarily  at  the  time  of  her  death,^i  or  of  the  birth  of 
issue.*^  Thus,  if  after  marriage  a  wife  be  seized  and 
then  be  disseized  and  then  have  issue, ^'^  or  if  she  have 
issue  and  tlie  issue  die  and  she  be  thereafter  seized,^* 
the  husband  has  his  curtesy. 

1  Slater  v.  Ravvson,  6  Met.  439,  444.  See  Fitzhugh  v.  Croghan,  2 
Marsh.  J.  J.  42  i ;  l!»  Am.  Dec.  i;?:» ;  Towle  v.  Aver,  8  N.  H.  58  ;  Eng- 
lishbe  V.  Heliuuth,  3  N.  Y.  294 ;  Boone  Real  Prop.  ^  20  ;  Co.  Litt.  153  a. 

2  Vanderheyden  v.  Crandell,  2  Denlo,  9,  21 ;  1  N.  Y.  491.  See 
Hovenden  v.  Aiineslev,  2  Schoules  &  L.  623;  Mercer  v.  Selden,  1 
How.  37,  54  ;  Durando,  32  Barb.  529. 

3  Mercer  v.  Selden,  1  How.  .37,  54.  See  Higbee  v.  Rico,  5  Mass.  352  ; 
Adair  v.  Lott,  3  Hill,  1S2. 

4  Ellsworth  V.  Cook,  8  Paige,  643. 

5  Carpenter  i\  Garrett,  75  Va.  129, 1G5. 

6  Sartlll  V.  Robeson,  2  Jones  Eq.  510,  512. 

7  Carpenter  v.  Oirrott,  7")  Va.  129,  1.34.  See  Mercer  v.  Sold'^'i,  1 
How.  37,  54  ;  Bush  ( .  Bradley.  4  Day,  298,  305 ;  Adams  v.  Logan,  6  Mo:i. 
17);  Furguson  r.  Tweedy,  50  Barb.  168;  43  N.  Y.  543,  648;  Glbbs  v. 
Esty,  22  Hun,  266. 

8  Bush  V.  Bradley,  4  Day,  298,  305.  See  Kline  v.  Beebe,  6  Conn. 
494;  Wass  V.  Bucknam,  33  Mo.  356;  Day  v.  Cochran,  24  Miss.  261; 
Stephens  v.  Hume,  25  Mo  31);  Iliirvev  v.  AVickham,  23  Mo.  112; 
Reaume  v  Chaniliors,  22  Mo.  36  ,  McKee  v.  Cottle,  6  Mo.  App.  416  ; 
Jackson  v.  Johnson,  5  Cowen,  74.  94  ;  15  Am.  Dec.  4.33  ;  Adair  v.  T.ott, 
3  Hill,  182  ;  Merritt  v.  Home,  5  Ohio  St.  307  ;  Borland  v.  Marshall,  2 
Ohio  St.  308 ,  Mitchell  v.  Ryan,  3  Ohio  St.  377  ;  Buchanan  ?'.  Duncan, 
40  Pa.  St.  82  ;  Chew  v.  Commissioners,  6  Rawlo,  100  ;  McCorry  v. 
King,  3  Humph.  267. 

9  Davis  V.  Mason,  1  Peters,  .503,  506,  507  ;  Mercer  v.  Selden,  1  How. 
.37,  54.  See  Barr  v.  Galloway,  1  McLean,  476  ;  Wells  v.  Thompson,  13 
Ala.  793  ;  48  Am.  Dec.  76  ;  Day  v.  Cochran,  24  Miss.  261,  377  ;  Jackson  v. 
Selllck,  8  Johns.  202.     Contra,  Neely  v.  Butler,  10  Mon.  B.  48. 

10  Mercer  v.  Selden,  1  How.  37,  54. 

11  Carpenter  t'.  uarrett,  75  Va.  129, 13.'>. 

12  Rawlings  v.  Adams,  7  :M;1.  23,54;  Lowry  v.  Steele,  4  Ohio,  170; 
post,  I  157. 

IL  &  W.  —  2  3. 


§  156  CURTESY.  230 

13  Comer  v.  Chamberlain,  6  Allen,  166,  Ifi"  ;  Jackson  v.  Johnson,  5 
Cowen,  7-1,90.  See  Powell  v.  Gossom,  IS  Mon.  B.  179;  Ellsworth  r. 
Cook,  8  Paige,  643 ;  Tayloe  v.  Gould,  10  Barb.  338  ;  Carter  v.  Williams, 
8  Ired.  Eq.  i77  ;  Lowry  v.  Steele,  4  Ohio,  170. 

14  Carr  v.  Givens,  9  Bush,  679;  15  Am.  Rep.  747.  See  De  Grey  v. 
Kii;hardson,  3  Atk.  469  ;  Buckley,  11  Barb.  43. 

15  Davis  V.  Mason,  1  Peters,  503,  SIS;  Bedus  v.  Hayden,  43  Jliss. 
614  ;  Adair  v.  Lott,  3  Hill,  182  ;  supra.,  n.  3. 

16  Ellsworth  v.  Cook,  8  Paige,  643. 

17  Cnrpenter  v.  Garrett,  75  Va.  129,  13.5.  See  Mercer  v.  Selden,  1 
liow.  37,  55  ;  Phaelon  l'.  Houseal,  2  McCord  Ch.  42.i. 

IS    Sartill  V.  Robeson,  2  Jones  Eq.  510,  512. 

19  Parker  \<.  Carter,  4  Hare,  400.  But  see  Borland  v.  Marshall,  2 
Ohio  St.  308  ;  supra,  n.  8. 

20  Doe  V.  Rivers,  7  Term,  272 ;  Stoddard  v.  Glbbs,  1  Sum.  263 ; 
Planters  r.  Davis,  31  Ala.  626  ;  Baker  v.  Flournoy,  .5.S  Ala.  650  ;  Mackey 
V.  Proctor,  12  Mon.  B.  4:«  ;  Stewart  >•.  Barclay,  2  Bush,  5.50  ;  Shores  t'. 
Carlev,  8  Allen,  426  ;  Malone  v.  MoLauriii,  40  Miss.  161  ;  Redus  v. 
Havden,  43  Miss.  614;  McKee  v.  Cottle,  6  Mo.  App.  416;  Oxford 
V.  Benton,  36  N.  H.  .395  ;  Furguson  r.  Tweedv.  43  N.  Y  543  ;  Tavloe  v. 
Gould,  10  Barb,  .^ss  ;  Watkins  r.  Thornton,  11  Ohio  St.  :J67  ;  Hitner  v. 
Ege,  23  Pa.  St.  305;  Reed,  3  Head,  491;  Upchurch  v.  Anderson,  59 
Tenn.  410. 

21  Tayloe  v.  Gould,  10  Barb.  388. 

22  McKee  t>.  Cottle,  6  Mo.  App.  416  ;  Watkins  v.  Thorrton,  11  Ohio 
St.  367. 

23  Watkins  v.  Thornton ,  11  Ohio  St.  367. 

24  1  Perry  Trusts,  ??  322-324. 

25  Hopkinson  v.  Dumas,  42  N.  H.  303  ;  Prescott  v.  Walker,  16  X.  11. 
343  ;  Chew  c.  Commissioners,  5  Rawle,  IGO. 

26  Taylor  v.  Smith,  54  Miss.  50. 

27  I  Wash.  Real  Prop.  1:5.5  ;  Litt.  ?  45. 

28  Wash  V.  Bucknam,  3H  Me.  360. 

29  Carr  v.  Givens,  0  Bush,  679,  683  ;  15  Am.  Rep,  747  ;  supra,  n.  14. 

30  Mercer  V.  Selden,  1  How.  37,  55  ;  McDaniel  v.  Grace,  15  Ark.  465, 
483  ;  Upchurch  v.  Anderson,  5J  Tenn.  410,  411 ;  supra,  n.  20. 

31  Except  by  statute :  Stewart  v.  Ross,  50  Miss.  776. 

32  Jackson  i'.  Johnson,  5  Cowen,  74,  95  ;  ante,  i  152. 

33  Comer  v.  Chamberlain,  6  Allen,  1B6,  169  ;  ante,  J?  152,  ISti,  155. 

34  Jackson  v.  Johnson,  6  Cowen,  74,  95  ;  ante,  U  152, 154. 

§  156.  Death  of  wife  necessary  to  givo  curtesy.  —  Until 
the  death  of  the  wife  curtesy  i.s  initiate ^  —  a  contingent 
and  not  a  vested  estate  ;2  only  after  it  is  consummated 
by  the  wife's  deatli  is  the  husband  i>roperly  a  tenant 
by  the  curtesy.*  On  her  death  ho  becomes  so,  without 
any  assignment,*  by  operation  of  law,*  and  has  a  life 


231  CURTESY.  1 157 

estate  with  the  rights  of  a  coiivenlional  ll.'e  tenant." 
Civil  death  is  probably  not  sufiicient  J  tliough  her  con- 
viction of  bigamy  may  be,  by  statute.^ 

1  Rice  V.  HoEfman,  35  Md.  3+4,  350  ;  ante,  U  22, 151  ;  post,  ?  158. 

2  Porter,  27  Gratt.  599,  606  ;  ante,  J  22  ;  2)ost,  §  162. 

:!  Jones  v.  Davies,  7  Hurl.  &  N.  507,  508  ;  Wheeler  v.  Hotch::is3, 10 
Coiia.  :;25,  ZiO ;  Wi.me,  2  Laus.  21,  21 ;  jjost,  \  los. 

4  Rice  V.  Hoffman,  35  Md.  244,  CJO  ;  Adair  v.  Lott,  3  Hill,  182. 

5  AVatson,  13  Conn.  83,  86. 

6  Shortall  v.  Hinkley,  31  III.  210,  227  ;  post,  J  158. 

7  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ?  475. 

8  Md.  U.  C.  1878,  p.  807^  §  102. 

I  157.  Property  in  which  curtesy  exists.  —  Curtesy  is 
an  estate  in  real  j^ropert^'/  though  Avhen  money  is 
treated  in  equity  as  realty  a  husband  may  have  the 
interest  thereof  as  curtesy,^  It  arises  only  out  of 
estates  of  inheritance^ — not,  for  example,  out  of  an 
estate  j)er  autre  vie*  —  and  arises  equally  wliether  the 
fee  is  absolute  or  determinable.^  But  whether  or  not  it 
continues  after  a  determinable  fee  has  determined  is 
disi^uted,*  and,  strangely  enough,  the  prevailing  opin- 
ion is  that  it  does.''  Tlie  fee  must  be  a  present  one,  for 
no  curtesy  arises  out  of  remainders  ;*  and  it  must  not 
be  held  by  the  wife  as  joint  tenant,^  Curtesy  arises  out 
of  equitable  as  well  as  legal  estates  of  inheritance,'"  if 
there  is  seisin  in  fact ;  '^  indeed,  it  does  not  arise  out  of 
bare  legal  estates.'-  But  when  proiDcrty  is  settled  on  a 
married  woman,  and  the  settlement  contains  words 
clearly  excluding  the  marriage  rights  of  her  husband," 
it  i;i  her  equitable  separate  estate,'^*  and  he  has  no  cur- 
tesy in  it ;  '^  still  if  the  words  do  not  also  exclude  his 
rights  after  lier  death,  he  will  have  curtesy  if  lie  sur- 
A'ives  her, '6  unless  in  pursuance  of  powers  in  the  settle- 
ment she  lias  conveyed  the  property  away ''  or  willed 
it. '8  And  much  the  same  rule  applies  to  her  statutory 
separate  cstatc,^^  out  of  Avhich  curtesy  may  or  may  not 


§157  CUKTESY.  232 

arise.^"    There  is  no   cux'tesy  in  a  Avife's  pre-emption 
rights  in  United  States  lands.^' 

1  2  Blackst.  Com.  126  ;  1  GreoiU.  Cruise,  140. 

2  Rice  V.  Hoffman,  35  Md.  344,  3.52.  See  Sweetapple  v.  Bindon,  2 
Vern.  536  ;  Fletcher  v.  A.shburner,  1  Brock.  409 ;  Dodson  v.  Hay,  3 
Brock.  404;  FoUett  v.  Tyrer,  14  Sim.  125;  Davis  c.  Mason,  1  Peters, 
503;  Dunscomb,  1  Johns.  Ch.  506;  7  Am.  Dec.  504;  Clipper  v.  Liver- 
good,  5  Watts,  116  ;  ante,  I  136. 

3  Sumner  v.  Partridge,  2  Atk.  47 ;  Boothby  v.  Vernon,  9  Mod.  147  ; 
Simmons  v.  Goodinjj,  5  Ired.  liq.  3s2. 

4  Stead  v.  Piatt,  18  Beav.  50,  57. 

5  Paine,  8  Coke,  67,  6S  ;  Thornton  v.  Krepps,  37  Pa.  St.  391  ;  With- 
ers V.  Jenkins,  14  S.  C.  5i*7. 

6  Mason  v.  Johnson,  47  Md.  347,  a57  ;  Hatfield  v.  Sneden,  34  N.  Y. 
284. 

7  Buckworth  v.  Thirkell,  3  Bos.  <fe  P.  6ri2,  n  ;  4  Doug.  323  ;  Moody 
V.  King,  2  Bing.  447  ;  9  Eng.  C.  L.  475 ;  Smith  v.  Spencer,  6  DeGex, 
M.  &  G.  632  ;  Northcott  v.  Whipp,  12  Mon.  B.  65  ;  Hatfield  v.  Sneden, 
54  N.  Y.  280  ;  Thornton  v.  Knapp,  37  Pa.  St.  391  ;  Evans,  9  Pa.  St.  190  ; 
Taliaferro  v.  Burwell,  4  Call.  321  ;  Withers  v.  Jenkins,  14  S.  C.  597  ;  I 
Wash.  Real  Prop.  i:^i;  1  Greenl.  Cruise,  146,  147;  4  Kent  Com.  32; 
Boone  Real  Prop.  ?  50.  But  see  Doe  v.  Hulton,  3  Bos.  &  P.  663  ; 
Weller,  28  Barb.  589. 

8  Redus  V.  Hayden,  43  Miss.  614,  636  ;  ante,  1 165. 

9  1  Wash.  Real  Prop.  135 ;  ante,  I  155. 

10  Rawliugs  V.  Adams,  7  Md.  28,  54.  See  Appletoii  t'.  Rawley,  Law 
R.  8  Eq.  139, 143  ;  Fletcher  v.  Ashburner,  1  Brown  Ch.  5U3  ;  Robinson 
V.  Codman,  1  Sum.  128  ;  Phillips  v.  Codman,  2  Duval,  549  ;  Gardner  v. 
Hooper,  3  Gray,  404  ;  Houghton  v.  Hapgood,  13  Pick.  1.T4  ;  Robb  v. 
Griffin,  26  Miss.  579 ;  Taylor  v.  Smith,  54  Miss.  50  ;  Alexander  r.  Wor- 
rance,  17  Mo.  228  ;  Tremmell  r.  Kleiboldt,  6  Mo.  App.  549;  Cushiiig  v. 
Blake,  2;)  N.  J.  Eq.  399  ;  30  N.  J.  Eq.  696  ;  Sartill  ?•.  Robeson,  2  Jones 
Eq.  510,  512  ;  Dowry  v.  Steele,  4  Ohio,  171  ;  Dubs,  31  Pa.  St.  151  ;  Night- 
ingale- ?i.  Hidden,  7  R.  I.  115  ;  Withers  v.  Jenkins,  14  S.  C.  597  ;  Baker 
V.  Heiskell,  1  Cold.  641  ;  Winkler,  18  W.  Va.  455. 

11  Sartill  V.  Robeson,  2  Jones  Eq.  510,  512.  See  Parker  v.  Carter,  4 
Hare,  413  ;  Pitt  v.  Jackson,  2  Brown  Ch.  51  ;  Morgau,  5  Madd.  408  ; 
ayUe,  1 155. 

12  Chew  V.  Commissioners,  5  Rawle,  160, 163 ;  ante,  ?  155. 

13  Mitchell  v.  Moore,  16  Gratt.  275, 280.  See  Moore  \\  Webster,  Law 
R.  3  Eq.  267;  Morgan,  5  Madd.  408  ;  Payne,  11  Mon.  B.  i:ia  ;  Tremmell 
V.  Kleiboldt,  6  Mo.  App.  54.) ;  Douglas  v.  Cruger,  80  N.  Y.  15  ;  Dubs,  31 
Pa.  St.  149  ;  Kge  r.  Jledlar,  82  Pa.  St.  86 ;  Carter  v.  Dale,  3  Lea,  710  ;  31 
Am.  Rep.  660 ;  jyosl,  i  200. 

14  Fost,  U  19fr--l". 

15  Hearle  v.  Greenbank,  1  Ves.  Sr.  298 ;  Moore  v.  Webster,  Law  R. 
3  Eq.  267  ;  Barker,  2  Sim.  249 ;  Monroe  v.  Van  Meter  100  III.  347  ; 
Pool  V.  Blakie,  53  111.  4  '5  ;  Rigler  v.  Cloud,  14  Pa.  St.  361 ;  Stokes  v. 
McKibbin,  13  Pa.  St.  267;  Cochran  v.  O'Hern,  4  Watts  &  S.  95;  39 
Am.  Dec.  69  ;  Bottoms  v.  C'arley,  5  Heisk.  6  ;  Beecher  i\  Hicks,  7  Lea, 
207  ;  infra,  u.  16. 

16  Cooney  v.  Woodburn,  33  Md.  320,  326,  .'527  ;  Winkler,  18  W.  Va. 
455, 466, 467.    See  Appletoii  v.  Rawley,  Law  R.  8  Eq  ICJ,  143  ;  Cooper 


233  CURTESY.  §  158 

V.  McDonald,  Law  K.  7  Ch.  D.  2SS  ;  23  En?.  R"p.  oSl ;  Follott  v.  Tvrer, 
U  Sim.  125  ;  Bur:Kt  v.  Davis,  2  P.  Wnis.  ;uii ;  Rochon  ?■.  Lccott,  2 
Stewt.  42u;  De  Hart  v.  Dean,  2  McAr.  bO;  Payne,  11  Jlon.  B.  i:» ; 
Hart  V.  Soward  14  Mon.  B.  305;  DousUi.s  v.  Cruger,  80  N.  Y.  15; 
Hatfield  v.  Sneden,  54  N.  Y.  280  ;  Hardy  v.  Van  Harliiigen,  7  Oliio  St. 
208  ;  Lowry  v.  Steele,  4  Ohio,  170  ;  Ege  v.  M"di:ir,  82  Pa.  St.  86  ;  Til- 
linghast  v.  Coggeshall,  7  R.  I.  383 ;  Frazer  v.  Hightower,  12  HeLsk.  94  ; 
Carter  v.  Dale,  3  La.  710  ;  ?1  Am.  Eep.  660  ;  Sayer  v.  Wall,  26  Gratt. 
3M  ;  21  Am.  Rep.  303. 

17    Pool  V.  Blakie,  53  111.  415,  502. 

IS    Stokes  V.  McKibbin ,  13  Pa.  St.  267, 269. 

13    Post,  ch.  xiU.,  ii  217-243. 

20  Post,  a  160-162. 

21  McDaniol  v.  Grace,  15  Ark.  4&5,  484. 

g  153.  Incidonts  of  tlio  estate  of  curtesy.  —  Curtesy  has 
tAVO  stages  :  one  in  which  it  is  initiate  and  contingent, 
the  other  in  which  it  is  eonmimmate  and  vested. 

1.  Curtesy  initiate.  When  inarriage,i  birth  of  issue,^ 
and  seisin'  have  taken  place,'  curtesy  initiate  exists,^ 
Although  the  husband  Iiolds  this  estate  in  his  own 
right,^  and  by  the  old  common  law  had  through  it  cer- 
tain rights  to  homa2;e,  etc.,'  he  has  by  virtue  of  it  no 
present  tenancy,*  it  works  no  change  in  the  incidents 
of  his  tenac3'' during  coverture  in  his  wife's  riglit  ^  It 
is  not  a  vested  estate,^''  and  may  be  destroyed  by 
divorce^^  or  by  statute  ;^-  and  thougli  it  arise  in  prop- 
erty in  which  the  husband  is  tenant  for  years  no 
merger  foUow.s,"  Still  the  husband  may  convey  his 
contingent  interest,'*  it  may  be  seized  for  his  debts,'^  he 
cannot  in  fraud  of  creditors"*  settle  it  on  his  wife,''  nor 
Avill  a  court  of  equity  interfere  Avith  it  on  her  behalf. '^ 
All  the  luisband's  rights  during  coverture  are,  however, 
suspended  by  settlements  to  the  wife's  sole  and  separate 
use,'^  and  almost  every  Avhere  now  by  statutes.'-"' 

2.  Curtesy  consummate.  Only  on  the  wife's  death 
does  curtesy  become  consummate  and  vest,"-^'  and  is  the 
husband  properly  tenant  by  tlie  curtesy.^^  He  becomes 
so  by  operation  of  law,23  no  assignment  being  neces- 
sar3^,2*  and  whether  he  so  desires  or  not.'^^    He  takes 


g  158  CUETESY.  234 

rather  as  an  heir  than  as  a  purchaser,"®  and  holds  the 
proijerty  subject  to  all  encumbrances.^  His  estate  has 
the  incidents  of  a  conventional  life  estate ;  ^  he  may 
eject  others  t herefrom, -"s  and  defend  an  ejectment  suit 
brought  against  him  by  his  "W'ife's  heirs.^"  He  may 
sell 51  or  lease^'^  it,  but  only  his  interest  ;^^  an  attempt  to 
convey  the  fee,  under  the  old  law  working  a  forfeiture 
against  him  ;  3*  aid  it  may  be  taken  for  his  debts.^  He 
has  a  right  to  reasonable  estovers,^®  but  not  to  commit 
waste. 3^ 

1  Ante,  I  153. 

2  Ante,  I  154. 

3  Ante,  I  15o. 

4  As  shown,  ante,  ?  1C2. 

5  Eice  V.  Hoffman,  35  Mfl.  314.  S-JO  ;  Foster  v.  Marshall,  22  N.  K. 
4ni,  44;i  ;  Winiie,  2  Laiis.  21,  21  ;  Wilson  v.  Arentz,  70  N.  C  G70,  673  ; 
ante,  H  151, 152,  lod. 

6  Heath  v.  White,  5  Conn.  228,  235  ;  Shortall  v.  HInkley,  31  HI.  219, 
227  ;  ante,  \  116. 

7  Wright,  2  Md.  42!),  5.-)4  ;  SG  Am.  Bee.  -23  ;  1  Bish.  M.  W.  §  580. 

8  Jones  V.  Bavies,  5  Hurl.  <fe  X.  766;  7  Hurl.  &  X.  507,  508  ;  Winne, 
2  Lans.  21,  24. 

9  Winne.  2  Lans.  21,  21.  See  Kibbey  v.  WUliams,  .=18  IIU  30,  31; 
Cole  V.  Van  lliper,  41  III.  53, 66  ,  Winkler,  18  W.  Va.  455,  469. 

10  Ante,  \  22. 

11  Stewart  M.  &  D.  \  44.3. 

12  Winne,  2  Lans.  21,  2G ;  ante,  \  22. 

13  Jones  V.  Davies,  5  Hurl.  &  N.  766 ;  7  Hurl.  <fc  N.  507,  508. 

14  Central  r  Copeland,  IS  Md.  .S05,  320.  See  Wells  r.  Thompson,  13 
Ala,  7a3;  48  Am.  Dec.  76 ;  Shortall  v.  Hinkley,  31  111.  219, 226. 

15  Shortall  v.  Hinkley,  31  111.  219, 227 ;  Day  v.  Cochran,  24  Miss.  261, 
275  ;  Canbv  v.  Porter,  12  Ohio,  79,  80.  See  Plumb  v.  .Sawyer,  21  Conn. 
351;  Long  II.  Hitchcock,  99  111.  550;  Aiiflerson  v.  Tydings,  8  Md.  427, 
443  ;  Roberts  v.  Whiting,  16  :Mass.  186  ;  Winne,  2  Laus.  21,  25  ;  Burd  v. 
Dansdale,  2  Binn.  SO  ;  Mattock  v.  Stearns,  9  Vt  326. 

16  Ante,  U  113-118. 

17  Wickes  v.  Clarke,  8  Paige,  161,  172. 

18  Van  Duzer,  6  Paige,  366,  370. 

19  Cooney  v.  Woodburn,  33  Md.  320,  326 ;  ante,  ?  157. 

20  Anderson  v.  Tydings,  8  Md.  427,  443  ;  Staples  v.  Brown,  13  Allen, 
16;  Winne,  2  Lans.  21,  25  ;  Curry  v.  Bott,  53  Pa.  St.  400,  403  ;  post,  J  161. 

21  Wheeler  v.  HotchkLss,  10  Conn.  225, 2.30  ;  Henderson  v  Oldham, 
5  Dana,  2.54,  2.-)7 ;  Rice  v.  Hoffman,  3.5  Md.  344,  349,  350 ;  Foster  v.  Mar- 
shall, 22  X.  H.  491,  493  ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  5  463 ;  ante,  U  22,  156 ;  post, 
i  162, 


\ 


235  CURTESY.  g  169 

22  Jones  v.  Davies,  7  Hurl.  &  N.  SO",  508  ;  Winne,  2  Lans.  21,  2^. 

23  Watson ,  13  Conn.  83,  86  ;  Stewart  v.  Ross,  50  Miss.  776,  701. 

24  Bice  v.  Hoffman,  35  Md.  ZU,  a50 ;  Adair  v.  Lott,  3  Hill,  182. 

25  Jones  v.  Davies,  7  Hurl.  &  N.  507  ;  Watson,  13  Conn.  83,  86. 

26  Watson,  13  Conn.  83,  86.  See  Coleman  v.  Waples,  1  Har.  (Del.) 
196 ;  Willis  r.  Snelling,  6  Rich.  280. 

27  See  Forbes  v.  Sweesy,  8  Xeb.  520 ;  Winne,  2  Lans.  21. 

28  Shortall,  31  111.  210,  227  ;  Rice  v.  Hofifman,  35  Md.  354.  350  ;  Miller 
V.  Bledsoe,  61  Mo.  96,  105. 

29  Hall,  32  Ohio  St.  184. 

30  Grant  v.  Townsend,  2  Hill.  554. 

31  Wells  V.  Thompson,  13  Ala.  793;  48  Am.  Dec.  76;  Bottoms  v. 
Coiley,  5  Heisk.  1,  5  ;  infra,  n.  33. 

32  Shortall  v.  Hinliley,  31  111.  219,  226. 

33  Maraman  v.  Caldwell,  8  Mon.  B.  .32  ;  Flagg  v.  Bean,  25  N.  H.  49  ; 
Koltenbrocli  v.  Cracraft,  36  Ohio  St.  584. 

34  French  v.  Rollins,  21  Me.  372  ;  McKee  r.  Pfout,  3  Dall.  486. 

35  Anderson  v.  Tydings,  8  Md.  427,  443  ;  supra,  n.  15. 

36  Armsirong  ?'.  Wilson,  60  111.  226,  228. 

37  Weise  v.  Welsh,  30  N.  J.  Eq.  431,  434. 

g  159.  How  ciirtesy  may  be  barred,  defeated,  or  lost.  —  A 
husband  being  sui  juris  can,  before  ^  or  after  marriage,^ 
make  an  agreement  enforeible  in  equity^  Avitli  hi.s  wife, 
whereby  he  relinqui.shes  curtesy.*  And  as  he  can  con- 
vey this  estate,^  lie  may  of  course  release  it  to  any  one,^ 
which  he  generally  does  by  joining  in  his  wife's  con- 
veyances.' But  he  cannot  by  disclaimer  prevent  its 
vesting  on  his  wife's  deatli.^  The  wife's  property  may 
be  so  settled  by  deed'  or  by  statute  "*  that  curtesy  never 
arises,  or  it  maj^  arise  and  be  defeasible  by  her  deed" 
or  will;!^  but  where  her  will  is  valid  onlj'  with  the 
husband's  assent,  he  may  revoke  his  assent  any  time 
before  probate.^'  So  by  statute  it  may  be  forfeited  by 
bigamy,!'  adultery,^*  or  treason.^^  A  divorce  a  xnnculo 
destroys  it.^'  It  may  be  barred  by  limitations, ^^  or  by 
the  acceptance  of  a  provision  in  its  stead. ^'  Formerly, 
it  was  forfeited  by  an  absolute  conveyance  of  the  lands, ^^ 
but  this  law  is  obsolete.^! 

1    Waters  v.  Tagewell,  9  Md.  291,  303  ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ?  32. 


g  160  CUKTESY.  236 

2  HutcUins  v.  Dixon,  11  Md.  29,  37 ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ?  182 ;  ante, 
il  40,  et  seq.,  9y,  et  seq. 

3  ^«te,  2H2,  53, 

4  See  also  Roclion  v.  Lecott,  2  Stewt.  429. 

5  Ante,  I  158. 

6  1  Wash.  Real  Prop.  152. 

7  See  Carpenter  v.  Davis,  72  111.  14  ;  Stewart  v.  Ross,  50  Miss.  776. 
Compare  Jacques  v.  Ennis,  25  N.  J.  Eq.  402  ;  Gilniore,  7  Oreg.  374  ; 
Honcli  V.  Ritter,  76  Pa.  St.  280  ;  post,  H  394-408. 

8  Watson,  13  Conn.  83,  86. 

9  nutchins  v.  Dixon,  11  Md.  29,  37,  38  ;  ante,  \  157. 

10  Tong  V.  Marvin,  15  Mich.  60,  70,  73  ;  post,  i  161. 

11  Undor  settlement.  Pool  v.  Blakie,  53  111.  4r)5,  502  ;  under  statute, 
Porch  V.  Pries,  18  N.  J.  Eq.  204,  208. 

12  Under  settlement,  Stokes  v.  McKibbln,  13  Pa.  St.  267,  269 ;  under 
statute,  Stewart  c.  Ross,  50  Miss.  776,  791. 

13  George  v.  Bussing,  15  Mon.  B.  563.  See  Sibsby  v.  Bullock,  10 
Allen,  94. 

14  Md.  R.  C.  1878,  p.  807,  §  102.    See  Stewart  M.  &  D.  5  178. 

15  Not  without :  Wells  v.  Thompson,  13  Ala.  793  ;  48  Am.  Dec.  76  ; 

1  Cireenl.  Cruise,  150. 

16  Pemberton  v.  Hicks,  1  Binn.  1. 

17  Stewart  M.  &  D.  i  443. 

18  Shortall  v.  Hinkley,  .31  111.  219,  227.  See  Wright  r.  Plumbtree,  3 
Barn.  &  Aid.  474 ;  Carter  v.  Cartrell,  16  Ark.  154  ;  Neal  v.  Robertson, 

2  Dana,  86 ;  Thompson  v.  Green,  4  Ohio  St.  216  ;  Weisinger  v.  Murphy, 
2  Head,  674. 

19  Pa.  Purd.  Dig.  1876.  p.  1008,  ^  23  ;  77  Pa.  St.  276,  379. 

20  1  Greenl.  Cruise,  150  ;  Boone  Real  Prop.  ?  51 ;  ante,  ?  158. 

21  See  Dennett,  40  N.  H.  505  ;  Miller,  Meigs,  184. 

?  160.  Curtesy  imder  statutes,  generailj.  —  In  the  He- 
vised  Laws  of  Alabama,  Arkansas,  Colorado,  Georgia, 
Louisiana,  Minnesota,  Missouri,  South  Carolina,  Texa.s, 
and  Virginia,  there  seems  to  be  no  mention  of  curtesy.^ 
In  those  of  Connecticut, ^  Delaware,^  Maryland,^  New 
Jersey ,5  New  York,"  Pennsylvania,"  Rhode  Island,*  and 
Tennessee,^  curtesy  is  incidentally  mentioned  as  exist- 
ing. In  those  of  Kentucky  ,io  Maine,"  Massachusetts,!^ 
Michigan,"  Nebraska,"  New  Hampshire,!^  North  Caro- 
lina,'«  Ohio,"  Oregon, "«Verinont,'9  and  West  Virginia,^" 
curtesy  is  expressly  given.  In  those  of  California,^! 
Florida,22  Illinois, -^  Indiana,^'  lowaj-^  Kansas,-^  Missis- 
sippi,-^' and  Nevada,28  curtesy  is  cxjiressly  abolished. 


237  CURTESY.  §  160 

When  curtesy  is  abolished  another  estate  is  generally 
given  in  its  place,  as  in  Illinois,  where  a  husband  lilce 
his  wife  lias  dower.®  And  when  curtesy  is  recognized 
it  is  often  expressly  modified  and  made  a  different  es- 
tate; as  in  Ohio,  whei'e  bh-th  of  issue  is  done  away 
with;^"  in  West  Virginia,  where  tlie  wife  must  die 
seized  ;^i  in  Wisconsin,  where  the  wife  must  die  intes- 
tate;^^ in  Michigan,  wliere  a  second  husband  lias  no 
curtesy  if  his  wife  leaves  a  child  by  her  first  husband  ;  ^^ 
and  as  in  Minnesota,  where  it  is  forfeited  by  desertion.^* 
But  a  statute  giving  curtesy  will  not  be  construed  to 
change  the  requisites  and  incidents  thereof,  except  so 
far  as  express  words  require.^^  Thus,  the  West  Vir- 
ginia statute,  which  provides  "  if  a  married  woman  die 
seized  of  an  estate  of  inheritance  in  land,  her  liusband 
shall  be  tenant  by  the  curtesy  in  tlie  same,"^^  does  not 
do  away  with  the  necessity  of  birth  of  issue.^'  Wlien, 
however,  curtesy  is  not  expressly  given  or  abolished, 
it  exists  as  a  part  of  the  common  law,^^  except  in 
Louisiana  and  Texas,  where  this  law  as  to  curtesy  was 
never  in  force,^*  unless  it  is  impliedly  abolished  by 
married  women's  separate  property  acts.*"  In  any  case 
these  acts  work  important  changes  in  common-law 
curtesy.*!  A  statute  providing  tliat  the  husband  shall 
not  have  curtesy  when  his  wife  has  cliildren  by  a 
former  husband,  applies  only  to  lands  which  such 
children  inlierit,  or  their  shares.'*^ 

1  There  may  be  statutes  in  these  States  later  than  the  Revised 
Laws.  The  hiws  of  Minnesota  do  refer  to  curtesy,  but  only  to  repeal 
the  acts  relating  thereto :   Minn.  Stats.  1878,  p.  572. 

2  Conn.  G.  S.  1875,  p.  392,  \  28. 

3  Del.  R.  O.  1S74,  p.  478,  I  1,  p  479,  ?  4. 

4  Md.  R.  C.  1878,  p.  397,  ?  2,  p.  412,  \l  59,  60,  p.  807,  ?  102. 

5  N.  J.  Rev.  1877,  p.  638,  J  9,  p.  639,  I  14,  p.  298,  \  6,  p.  12.35,  \  2. 

6  N.  y.  R.  S.  1882,  p.  2213,  ?  20. 

7  Pa.  Purd.  Dig.  1876,  p.  1007,  ?  18,  p.  1008,  \  2.3. 

8  B,  I.  P.  S.  18S2,  p.  424,  \  14,  p.  471,  ?  3,  p.  190,  \  8. 


§  161  CURTESY.  238 

9  Tenn.  R.  S.  ISTH,  U  24SC,,  3263. 

10  Ky.  R.  S.  1871,  p.  '>27,  §  1. 

11  Me.  R.  S.  1871,  p.  7.-.S,  ?  15. 

12  Mass.  P.  S.  1882,  p.  710,  J?  1,  3,  p.  818,  ?  L 

13  Mich.  B.  8.  1S82,  ??  5770,  5783. 

14  Neb.  C.  L.  18S1,  pp.  215,  255. 

15  N.  H.  G.  L.  1878,  pp.  4.35,  475. 

16  N.  C.  Bat.  Rev.  1873,  pp.  5.30,  531,  592. 

17  Ohio  R.  S.  1880,  U  2852,  3108,  4176,  4177. 

18  Oreg.  G.  L.  1872,  p.  588,  §  30. 

19  Vt.  R.  L.  1880,  ??  2223,  2230. 

20  W.  Va.  R.  S.  1879,  p.  .502,  i  15,  p.  556,  ??  17, 18. 

21  Cal.  Civ.  Code  1881,  §  173. 

22  Fhx.  Dig.  1881,  p.  471. 

23  111.  R.  S.  1880,  p.  42.",,  J  1. 

24  Ind.  R.  S.  1881,  ?  2482. 

25  Iowa  R.  C.  1880,  ^  2440. 

26  Kan.  C.  L.  1881,  U  21,  29. 

27  Miss.  R.  S.  1880,  ?  1170. 

28  ■  Nev.  C.  L.  1873,  ?  l.-i7. 

29  III.  R.  S.  1880,  p.  425,  ?  1.  See  also  Ind.  R.  S.  1881,  ?  2485  ;  Iowa 
R.  S.  18S0,  ?  2440. 

.30  Ohio  R.  8.  1880,  ?  4170.  See  also  Oreg.  G.  L.  1872,  p.  588,  J  30  ;  Dubs, 
31  Pa.  St.  1.>I. 

31  W.  Va.  R.  S.  1879.  p.  502,  ?  15";  Winkler,  18  W.  Va.  4.55,  408.  See 
also  Wis.  R.  S.  1878,  i  2180. 

.32    Wis.  R.  S.  1878,  ?  2180. 

33  Mioh.  R.  S.  1882,  ?  5770.  See  also  Neb.  C.  S.  1S81,  p.  215;  Ohio 
R.  8.  1880,  J  476  ;  Vt.  R.  L.  1880,  §  2229. 

34  Minn.  R.  8.  1878,  p.  56.5. 

35  See  full  discussion  in  Winkler,  18  W.  Va.  455. 

36  W.  Va.  R.  S.  1879,  p.  502,  §  15. 

37  Winkler,  18  W.  Va.  455,  466,  488. 

38  Reaume  v.  Chambers,  22  Mo.  .36,  51  ;  Denny  v.  McCabe,  32  Ohio 
St.  576,  578  ;  ante,  i  6. 

39  "See  ante,  ?  6.  In  Texas  the  common  law  is  declared  in  force, 
R.  S.  1879, 1  3128  ;  but  the  community  system  prevails :  Post,  i  S!- 

40  Post,  ?  161. 

41  Post,  I  IGO. 

42  Kingsley  v.  Smith,  14  Wis.  360,  362. 

I  161.  Curtesy  under  married  women  acts.  —  Though 
some  cases  hold  that  statutes  which  secure  to  a  mar- 
ried woman  her  property  free  froin  the  control  of  her 
husband  with  power  to  dispose  of  it  by  will  or  deed  by 


239  CURTESY.  g  161 

implication  wliolly  abolish  curtesy /i  it  is  generally 
said  that  the  legislature  must  express  all  intended 
changes  in  common  law  estates,^  and  the  prevailing 
oiJinion  is,  as  in  the  ease  of  equitable  separate  prop- 
erty," that  while  separate  property  acts  do  suspend 
during  coverture  all  the  rights  of  tlie  husband  or  his 
creditors  in  statutory  separate  property,^  they  do  not 
destroy  curtesy  or  prevent  its  vesting  on  her  death,* 
unless  such  an  event  is  clearly  excluded, ^  as  where  the 
statute  not  only  provides  that  the  property  of  a  wife 
shall  be  hers  with  power  to  will,  etc.,  but  also  defines 
her  husband's  interest  therein  if  she  dies  intestate,"  in 
which  case  curtesy  is  excluded.^  Wlien  she  has  power 
to  alienate  or  charge  her  property  ^  she  may  thereby 
defeat  curtesy;'"  but  a  statute  must  contain  express 
words  to  enable  her  to  convey  alone  ;  '^  so  when  she 
has  power  to  make  a  will  she  may  thereby  defeat 
curtesy. '2 

1  Tong  V.  Marvin,  15  Mich.  60,  70,  73  ;  Ransom,  30  Mich.  328,  fSO  ; 
Stewart  v.  Ross,  50  Miss.  776,  790  ;  Billings  v.  Baker,  28  Barb.  343,  long 
discussion. 

2  Winne,  2  Lans.  21,34;  Houston  v.  Brown,  7  Jones  (X.  C.)  161, 
162  ;  Winkler,  18  W.  Va.  455,  46y. 

3  Pool  v.  Blakle.  53  111.  495,  502  ;  ante,  § 

4  Martin  v.  Robson,  65  111.  130, 131, 1.32;  16  Am.  Rop.  57S  ;  Beach  v. 
Miller,  51  111.  206,  20it ;  2  Am.  Rep.  290;  Cole  v.  Van  Ript-r,  44  111.  5s,  66 ; 
Kice  V.  Hoffman,  3.5  MU.  ■J44,  3.t0  ;  Schindel,  12  ."'.M.  l!M,  oi:!  ;  Anderson  v. 
Tydlngs,8  Md.  427,443  ;  Logan  v.  McGill,  8  Md.  W,\,  470  ;  Brown  v.  Clark, 
44  Mich.  400,  411 ;  Porch  v.  Fries,  18  N.  J.  Eq.  2(4,  208  ;  Hatfield  r.  Sne- 
den,54N.  Y.  280, 289  ;  Winne,  2  Lans.  21,26, ;«  ;  Kurd  i'.  Cass,  9  Barb.  306, 
369;  Jones  v.  Carter,  73  N.  C.  148,  149;  Houston  v.  Brown,  7  Jones 
(N.  C.)  161,  162;  Clark,  76  Pa.  St.  376,  478,  Col,-man  v.  Satterfield,  2 
Head,  259,  261 ;  Bottoms  v.  Corley,  5  Helsk.  1,  6,  9. 

5  Cole  V.  Van  Riper,  44  111.  58,  65,  66  ;  Anderson  v.  Tydings,  8  Md. 
•427,  443  ;  Rice  v.  Hoffman.  35  Md.  344,  3.50  :  Pcjrcli  v.  Fries,  18  N.  J.  Eq. 
204,  209;  Prall  r.  Smith,  31  N.  J.  L.  244.  2jr,  •  JlHtfield  v.  Sneden,  54 
N.  Y.  280,  287;  Hurd  v.  Cass,  9  Barb.  JWft,  3(;s  :;7>)  ;  Winne.  2  Lans.  21, 
26,34;  Leach,  21  Hun,  381,  382;  Zimmerman  r.  Schoenfeldt,  3  Hun, 
692,  6:^15;  Houston  v.  Brown,  7  Jones  (N.  C.)  161,  162;  Winkler,  18 
W.  Va.  45.5,  464,  467  ;  Kiiigsley  r.  Smith,  14  Wis.  360,  366. 

6  Compare  ante,  ?  157 

7  Mason  ti.  Johnson,  47  Md.  347,  357,  3.18. 

8  See  Md.  R.  C.  187S,  p.  481,  ?  20  ,  Minn.  St.  1S78,  p.  .56.5.  Sometimes 
there  is  an  express  provision  that  tlie  chapter  on  "  descent "  shall 
Mot  affect  curtesy  :  feee  iJ.  Y.  R.  S.  1882,  p.  2213,  j  20. 


§  162  CURTESY.  240 

9    Discussed  7ws<, 

10  Porch  V.  Fries,  18  N.  J.  Eq.  204,  208  ;  ante,  §  159. 

11  Cole  V.  Van  Eiper,  44  III.  58,  66  ;  post,  ?  399. 

12  Stewart  v.  Ross,  .50  Miss.  776,  791  ;  post,  ??  .340-354.  Unless  the 
statute  provides  to  the  contrary  :  See  N.  H.  G.  L.  1878,  p.  435. 

§  162.  Prospective  and  retrospective  effect  of  statutes  on 
curtesy.  —  Unlike  the  hu.sband's  rights  during  cover- 
ture hi  right  of  L's  wife  to  lands  of  which  she  has  pos- 
session,' curtesy  initiate  is  not  a  vested  right  ^ — it  does 
not  vest  till  the  wife's  death,^  and  may  therefore  be 
destroyed  by  statute.*  But  if  the  statute  does  not  ex- 
pre.ssly  refer  to  existing  rights  it  will  be  applied  only 
to  those  which  arise  after  its  passage.^  From  another 
point  of  view,  curtesy  consummate  is  regarded  as  an 
estate  acquired  by  descent,^  and  as  rules  of  descent  are 
determined  by  the  law  existing  at  the  time  of  the 
ancestor's  death,'  during  such  ancestor's  life  the  chance 
of  its  arising  may  be  destroyed,*  or  it  may  be  created  to 
arise.* 

1  Van  Note  v.  Downey,  28  N.  J.  L.  219,  222  ;  ante,  ??  22, 156, 159. 

2  Porter,  27  Gratt.  599,  606  ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  §  443  ;  ante,  ?  22. 

3  Hill  V.  Chambers,  30  Mich.  422,  427  ;  ante,  ^?  156,  158. 

4  Strong  v.  Clem,  12  Ind.  37,  41 ;  Hill  v.  Chambers,  SO  Mich.  422, 
427;  Hiithon  v.  Lyon,  2  Mich.  93,95;  Winne,  1  Lans.  508,  .513;  2  Lans. 
21,  26 ;  TlmrbpF  ?'.  Townsend,  22  N.  Y.  517  ;  Billings  v.  Baker,  28  Barb. 
343,  :Mfi;  nciiiiy  r.  McCabe,  35  Ohio  St.  576,  580;  Mellinger  ?•.  Bails- 
man, 45  P;i.  St.  522,  ,529  ;  Sharpless  v.  West,  1  (Jrant,  257,  260  ;  King.s- 
ley  V.  Smith,  14  Wis,  360,  :J65  ;  ante,  i  101,  n,  4. 

5  Porter  v.  Bowers,  55  Md.  213,  215,  216  ;  ante,  §  20. 

6  Watson,  13  Conn.  8.3,  86 ;  Rice  v.  Hoffman,  35  Md.  344,  .^50  ; 
Brown  v.  Clark,  44  Mich.  309,  311 ;  Stewart  •)'.  Ross,  .50  Miss.  776,  790; 
ante,  i  22. 

7  Ante,  ?  22. 

8  Hi:i  )'.  Chambers,  30  Mich.  422,  427 ;  supra,  n.  4. 

9  Brown  v.  Clark,  44  Mich.  .309,  311. 


241  husband's  estates.  §  163 

CHAPTER  X. 

husbaxd's  estates  in  wife's  personalty. 

Art.  I.  In  General,  gg  163-165. 

II.  Personalty  in  Possession,  gg  166-170. 

III.  Choses  in  Action,  ?§  171-176. 

IV.  Reduction  to  Possession,  H  177-183. 

Art.  I.  —  Husband's  Estate  in  Wife'  Personalty 
IN  General. 

I  163.    At  common  law. 

?  164.    In  equity. 

?  165.    Under  Statutes. 

§  163.  Husband's  estate  in  wife's  personalty  at  common 
law. — A  married  womian  being  at  common  law  merged 
in  lier  husband  ^  could  not  hold  property  at  all,' and  as 
estates  in  personal  iiroperty  were  unknown,^  her  hus- 
band did  not  take  a  mere  estate  during  coverture  in  her 
l^ersonalty  as  he  did  in  her  realty,*  but  he  took  it  abso- 
lutely.'' Still  as  change  of  title  to  personalty  was  af- 
fected only  by  change  of  possession,^  if  the  husband 
did  not  get  possession  while  liusband,"  the  title  on  dis- 
solution of  the  marriage  remained  in  her*  or  her  reprc- 
sentatives.9  The  common  law  rule,  therefore,  is  thai 
all  the  wife^fi personalti/  in  poisessio7i^°  vests  in  the  hus- 
band absolutely,"  and  that  he  may  reduce  her  choses  -in 
«c<?OH, '^  to  possession  any  time  during  coverture, ^^  and 
thus  make  them  his  own  absolutely  ;i*  otherwise  they 
continue  to  belong  to  her.i* 

1  Burleigh  v.  Coffin,  22  N.  H.  118, 124  ;  .M  Am.  Dec.  2nC  ;  ante,  I  38. 

2  Ante,  §  137. 

3  Antf,  ?  136. 

4  Ante,  Vi  146-150. 

5  Fleet  r.  Perrins,  3  Q.  B.  536,  511 ;  4  Q.  B.  500,  507;  Kcsner  v. 
Trigs,  flS  r.  .S.  .50.  .54  ;  Price  ?'.  Sessions,  3  How.  624,  6:i5 ;  McCaa  v. 
Woolf,42  Ala.  389,  3!)2  ;  Jacobs  v.  Adair,  31  Ark.  016,  623;  Trvou  v.  Sut- 


^  164  HCSBANC'S  ESTATES.  242 

ton,  n  Cal.  4!>0, 493  ;  Morgan  v.  Thomas,  14  Conn.  99, 102 ;  Johnson  v. 
Fleetwood,  41  Har.  (Del.)  442,  444  ;  Pope  i<.  Tucker,  23  Ga.  484,  487  ; 
Thomas  v.  Chicago,  55  111.  403,  40fi ;  fetandiford  v.  Devol,  21  In d.  404, 
407;  Campbell  v.  Galbreath,  12  Bush,  4-59,  4fi4  ;  Carleton  v.  Lovpjov,  54 
Me.  44.5,  447  ;  Sabel  v.  Slingluff,  52  Md.  i:J2,  135  ;  Ha.vward,  20  Pick. 
517,  .522  ;  Hopkins  r.  Carey,  23  Miss.  54,  5S ;  Clark  v.  Bark,  47  Mo.  17, 
19 ;  Cadwell  v.  Hill,  47  N.  H.  4fi7,  410  ;  Skillman,  13  N.  J.  Eq.  403,  406 ; 
Kennv  v.  Udall,  5  Johns.  Ch.  4fi4,  473  ;  Stokes  v.  itucken,  62  Barb.  145, 
]4(t ;  O'Connor  v.  Harris,  81  X.  C.  279,  282  ;  Needles,  7  Ohio  St.  432,  4:W  ; 
Maver,  77  Pa.  St,  482,  4<) ;  Arnold  v.  Rliggles,  1  R,  I.  165,  178  ;  Willis 
r.  Snelling,  6  Rich.  280,  284;  Ewlng  v.  Helm,  2  Tenn.  Oh.  3fi8,  369 ; 
AVallace  v.  Burden,  17  Tex.  467,  468;  Browning  »•.  Headley,2  Rob. 
fVa.)  340,  36?  ;  40  Am.  Dec.  755;  Barron,  24  Vt.  376,  392. 

6  This  seems  to  have  been  the  reason,  though  the  authorities  do 
not  refer  to  it. 

7  Post,  REDfCTI02Sr  TO  POSSESSIOX,  ??  177-183. 

8  Stewart  M.  A;  D.  ? J  445, 460  ;  Hayward,  20  Pick.  517,  522 :  post,  ?  176. 

9  Price  V.  IMcReynolds,  8  Lea,  36, 40.  See  O'Connor  v.  Harris,  81 
N.  C.  "27:1,  282 ;  Buckingham  v.  Carter,  2  Disu.  41,  43. 

10  Post,  U  166-170. 

11  Post,  'i  170. 

12  Post,  H  171-176. 

13  Po.'jf,  ??  1~-183. 

14  Post,  i  176. 

15  Supra,  notes  8,  9  ;  post,  ?  176. 

?  164.  Husband's  estate  in  wife's  personalty  in  equity.  — 
A  husbaml  ha.s  tinder  the  unwritten  law  the  same 
rights  in  his  Avife's  equitable  personalty '  as  he  has  in 
her  legal  personalty,*  unless  it  is  personalty  settled  to 
her  sole  and  separate  u.se,'and  except  that  when  he  has 
+o  appeal  to  equity  to  reduce  a  chose  in  action*  the  court 
may  make  a  provision  for  her  out  of  it.*  Gifts  from 
him  to  her  are  likewise  sustained  in  equity  * 

1  See  Vanderveer  c.  Alston,  16  Ala.  494  ;  Lenoir  i'.  Rainev,  15  Ala. 
667  ;  Lamb  v.  M'ragg.  8  Port.  73  ;  Lindsey  v.  Harrison,  3  Eng".  302,  311; 
Pope  V.  Tucker,  23  «a.  484,  487  ;  Beall  ?'.  Darden,  4  Ired.  Eq.  76  '  Mc- 
Donald V.  Crockett,  2;McCord  Ch.  1.30;  Riddlehoover  v.  Kinard,  1 
Hill  Ch.  ;W;  Eaves  o.  Gillespie,  1  Swan,  VIS;  Ewing  -.•.  Helm,  i 
Tenn.  Ch.  368,  369. 

2  Ante,  ?  163. 

3  See  Resor,  9  Ind.  347;  George  v.  Spencer.  2  Md.  Ch.  a59,  .360 ; 
Clark  )'.  Maguire,  16  Mo.  302  ;  post,  Wikk's  Eqititable  Sepakate 
ESTATK,  ii  197-216. 

4  Post,  i  194. 

5  Post,  Wife's  Equity,  ??  190-196. 

6  Bent,  44  Vt.  5J5,  SCO  •  ante,  H  42, 105,  127.    Consult pw<,  i  178. 


243  PERSONALTY   IX   POSSESSION.  ?^  165-166 

'i  165.  Husband's  estate  in  wife's  personalty  nnder  stat- 
utes.—  Married  women  separate  proi^erty  acts  usually 
destroy  all  the  husband's  rights  in  his  wife's  person- 
alty ;  1  but  a  statute  relieving  her  property  from  liabil- 
ity for  his  debts  does  not.^  These  acts  do  not  destroy 
any  existing  rights  in  personalty  in  possession,^  for 
such  rights  are  vested  and  cannot  be  destroyed;*  and 
they  are  construed  prosjiectively,"  so  as  not  to  affect 
existing  rights  to  property  not  in  i^ossession  ;  ^  but  a 
husband's  mere  right  of  reduction  to  possession  is  not 
vested  and  may  be  destroyed  by  express  statute/ 
though  the  contrary  view  has  in  many  cases  prevailed.^ 
In  some  States  the  husband  is  given  special  rights  in 
his  wife's  choses  in  action  after  her  death.^ 

1  See  Peck  v.  Hendersholt,  14  Iowa,  40,  44  ;  Noble  v.  Milliken,  74 
Me.  225,  22S  ;  4a  Am.  Kep.  oSl ;  post.  Wikk's  SxATUXOiiV  Skpauatk 
ESTATK,  ii  217-243. 

2  Weems,  19  ua.  3.34,  3H. 

3  Farrell  v.  Patterson,  43  111.  52,  58.  See  Sharp  v.  Maxwell,  30 
Miss.  589  ;  Westervelt  r.  (Jregg,  12  N.  Y.  202 ;  KiUer  v.  Hulse,o3  Barb. 
264  ;  Hawkins  v.  Lee,  22  Tex.  544. 

4  Ante,  J  22. 

5  Ante,  I  20. 

6  Stearns  v.  Weathers,  30  Ala.  712, 713  ;  KIdcJ  v.  Montague,  19  Ala. 
619  ;  Andersou,  1  Ala.  Sel.  fus.  612  ;  Farrell  v.  Patterson,  43  111.  62, 5S. 

7  Henrv  i>.  Dilley,  25  N.J.  L.  302,  304,  305,  307;  cases  cited  ante, 
I  22,  note  21. 

8  Dunn  v.  Sargeant,  101  Mass.  3.36,  339 ;  cases  cited  emte,  i  22,  n.  22. 

9  See  Md.  K.  C.  1878,  art.  50,  ?  92,  p.  447  ;  Md.  Acts,  18S2,  ch.  477, 
p.  7:i8 ;  Brown  v.  Bokee,  53-jMd.  155, 163. 

Articlk  TI.  —  Personalty  in  Possession. 

i  166.  iJefined. 

{  167.  Possession  by  wife. 

{  168.  Possession  by  hnsband. 

J  169.  Possession  by  third  person. 

i  170.  Husband's  rights  in. 

§  166.  Personalty  in  possession  defined.  —  In  this  con- 
nection the  word  "  possession  "  api^lies  properly  only 
to  corporeal  proiJerty*  —  stocks,   shares,  etc.,  though 


§  1G7  PERSONALTY   IX   POSSESSION.  244 

actually  in  hand  are  not  property  in  jjossession  ;  -  and 
one's  iiersonalty  in  possession  is  sucii  property  as  is 
detained  and  enjoyed  by  one  as  owner  or  by  anotlier 
for  him^  —  property  held  by  him  in  a  representative 
capacity,*  or  adversely  held  by  another,^  is  not  his 
jjroperty  in  possession.  Personalty  in  possession  is 
perhaps  best  defined  as  not  choses  in  action;^  but  it 
may  be  separately  determined  what  possession  by  a 
husband' or  by  his  wife,^  or  by  a  third  person,^  gives 
him  her  personalty  absolutely  under  the  common 
lavv.io 

1  Fleet  V.  Perrlns,  3  Q.  B.  5S6,  Wl ;  Arnold  v.  Ruggles,  1  K.  I.  165, 
173  ;  Bouv.  Law  Diet.  "  Possession." 

2  Brown  v.  BoUec,  5:5  Md.  155,  164,  165  ;  post,  I  173. 

3  Bouv.  Law  Diet.  "  Possession." 

4  Price  v.  .Sessions,  3  How.  624,  6:55  ;  pr^st,  ?  163. 

5  Thrasher  v.  Ingham,  32  Ala.  645,  6(i3 ;  pmt,  \  169. 

6  8ee  fully,  po«<,H71. 

7  Pos<,?168. 

8  Po*<,  n67. 

9  Post,  ?  169. 

10    Post,  \  170  ;  ante,  \  16.3. 

\  167.  Possession  by  wife  is  possession  of  husband. — 
Whatever  personalty  is  in  a  wife's  possession  is  in  the 
jjossession  of  her  husband, ^  unless  .she  holds  it  in  a 
representative  capacity,^  or  it  is  protected  by  some 
settlement^  or  statute.*  Thus,  chattels  in  the  family 
liome,^  money  in  her  pocket,^  and  articles  used  by  her,' 
are  in  her  husband's  possession ;  stealing  from  her  is 
stealing  from  him;^  money  received  by  her  is  his  in 
law.*  And  this  is  true,  although  he  lias  abandoned 
heri" — unless  this  has  been  absolute  and  finaP' — and 
prima  facie  in  spite  of  married  women  property  acts.''^ 

1  Bell,  ^  Ala,  536,  542  ;  ante,  U  n%-\1\. 

2  Farringeon  r.  Edgerly,  13  Allen,  453,  455.  See  Standiford  ?'. 
Devol,  21  Inil.  404,  407. 

3  Ante,  ?  164. 

4  Ante,  5  lft5. 

5  Topley,  31  Pa.  St.  32S,  329 ;  ante,  I  119. 


245  PKHSONALTY    IN    POSSESSlOjr.  I    168 

fi    Cox  V.  ScoU,  0  Biixt.  305,  310  ;  ante,  I  119. 
V    Stokes  !'.  Mackeii,C2  Barb.  1-115,  1-19.     ' 
S    Com.  t'.  Williams,  "Gray,  337,  :  38. 
9    Cox  V.  Scott, ;)  Caxt.  305,  31 1. 

10  Bell,  37  Ala.  o3G,  5-12. 

11  Stewart  M.  £  D.  ?  177.  See  Coughlln  v.  Ryan,  -17  Mo.  90  ; 
Uumond  v,  Magee,  4  Joiiiis.  Ch.  318  ;  Rees  i'.  Waters,  9  Watts,  90; 
ante,  i  90. 

12  Winter  r.  Walter,  37  Pa.  St.  155,  Idl ;  ante,  ?  119. 

^  168.  Tho  husband's  possession  must  be  as  husband. — 
A  wife's  personalty  in  the  actual  jjossession  of  her  hus- 
band is  not  deemed  in  possession  unless  held  by  him 
as  liusband  in  exercise  of  his  marital  rights ; '  choses 
in  liis  hands  as  trustee,'^  executor,*  or  agent,^  are  choses 
in  action,^  just  as  thougli  he  Avere  a  tliird  person.*  Ex- 
cept as  against  creditors,'  he  may  give  her  any  property 
whether  acquired  througli  iier  or  not,^  and  when  he  is 
in  possession  of  tliis  or  other  separate  property  of  hers 
the  possession  is  hers.* 

1  Wall  i\  Tomlinson,  Ifi  Ves.  413.  410;  Scarpellini  v.  Acheson,  7 
Q.  B.  8f.4,  870  ;  B:iker?'.  Hall,  12  Ves.  J  r.  41W  ;  Price  i'.  Sessions,  3  How. 
024,  6.3.5;  MuvfieUi?'.  Clifton,  SStewt.  375;  Savage  t.  Benham,  17  Ala. 
119;  MacUeiii,  28  Ala.  374;  Lockhart  v.  Cameron,  29  Ala.  355,  363; 
Vanderveer  v.  Alston,  16  Ala.  494;  Lowe  v.  Cody,  29  Ga.  117,  120; 
Standiford  v.  Wevol,  21  Ind.  404,  407;  Resor,  9  Jnd.  347;  State  v. 
Reigart,  1  Gill,  1.  26,  27  ;  39  Am.  Dec.  628 ;  Walker,  25  Mo.  367  ;  Dunn 
V.  Sargeant,  101  Mass.  336.  ;^38  ;  Vreeland,  15  N.  J.  Eq.  512  ;  Caswell  v. 
Hill,  4;  N.  H.  407,  410;  Pierson  r.  Smith,  9  Ohio  St.  554,  557;  Walden 
V.  Chambers,  7  Ohio  St.  30;  KUis  v.  Baldwin,  1  Watts  &  S.  2.5;,  2.i<j ; 
Timbers  v.  Katz,  6  Watts  &  S.  2;)0,  298  ;  Hind.  5  Whart.  138;  34  Am. 
Dec.  M2  ;  Mover,  77  Pa.  St.  482,  485  ;  Johnston,  31  Pa.  St.  450,  453,  454  ; 
Gocheiiaur,  23  Pa.  St.  460,  463;  Mr-Campbell,  2  Lea,  061,063;  Cox  v. 
Scott,  9  Baxt.  "05,  312  ;  Barron,  24  Vt.  376,  392  ;  Perry  v.  Wheelock,  4U 
Vt.  63,67  ;  post,  U  169, 174,  178. 

2  Wall  V.  Tomlinson,  16  Ves.  413,  410  ;  Terrell  v.  Green,  11  Ala.  207, 
216  ;  Lowe  v.  Codv,  2:i  Cla.  117,  120 ;  State  v.  Reigart.  1  Gill,  1, 26  ;  Dunn 
V.  Sargeant,  101  Mass.  336,  3;» ;  Moyer,  77  Pa.  St.  482, 485. 

3  Price  V.  Sessions,  3  How.  624,  635  ;  Walker,  25  Mo.  367. 

4  Pierson  v.  Smith,  0  Ohio  St.  554,  .557. 

5  Post,  \  172. 

6  Post,  ?  169.  Sometimes,  therefore,  it  is  In  his  possession,  a7id 
sometimes  not,  since  the  possession  of  her  agent  is  her  husband's 
possession :  Post,  \  169. 

7  Ante,  \\  113-118,  127. 

8  Lockhart  v.  Cameron,  29  Ala.  .3.j5,  363;  Fletcher  v.  Updike,  3 
Hnn,  3.50  ;  Wesco,  52  Pa.  St.  195  ;  ante,  \  127. 

9  ^)i?e,  S?  119,  120. 


§  169  PERSONALTY   IN   POSSESSION.  246 

\  169.  Possession  ot  third  person  for  husband  or  wife  is 
possession  of  husband.  —  Personalty  belonging  to  the  wife 
in  the  possession  of  her  agent,^  or  bailee,-  or  trustee ^ 
(for  the  husband's  rights  attach  to  equitable  property*), 
or  guardian,^  or  tenant  in  common,^  or  any  one  not 
holding  adversely,'  is  constructively  in  the  possession 
of  her  husband  •  but  not  property  held  adversely,^  or 
held  by  one  who  stands  simply  in  relation  of  debtor 
to  the  wife,*  or  who  holds  as  trustee,  administrator,  etc., 
property  of  some  estate  in  which  she  has  an  interest,'" 
her  legacies,  distributive  shares,  etc.,  being  choses  in 
action}'^  Tlie  estate  must  be  settled  up,'^  or  her  interest 
definitely  determined  and  set  off,''  before  an  executor 
or  trustee  ceases  to  hold  for  his  estate  and  holds  for 
her ; "  and  this  is  true  when  her  husband  is  such  ex- 
ecutor or  trustee,  and  he  holds  as  husband  onij'  when 
his  representative  duties  have  ceased.''  There  is  little 
difficulty  in  tlie  application  of  these  rules  to  chattels, '^ 
but  a  serious  question  whether  one  who  liolds  money 
for  her  is  not  simply  her  creditor."  It  seems  settled 
that  money  collected  by  lier  agent  inures  at  once  to  the 
benefit  of  her  husband  ;  '^  but  while  he  may  check  on 
her  money  in  bank,'^  money  with  a  banker  is  money 
lent  to  him,  and  is  a  chose  in  action,'^'*  and  any  part  of  it 
left  standing  in  her  name  when  coverture  ceases  remains 
hers.^ 

1  Turton,6Md.375,  381;  inrm,  n.  18. 

2  MasTPo  1'.  Toland,  8  Port.  3fi,  37  ;  fiwynn  v.  H.amllton,  2T  Ala.  23."?, 
237  ;  Armstrong  t'.  Simontoii,  2  Jlurph.  :i">l,  .■?52  ;  Whitaker,  1  Dev.  310, 
311 ;  Griiiibery  v.  Mhooii,  1  l)ev.  -Joe,  4.i8  ;  Pettijohii  i'.  Beasley,  -4  Dev. 
512. 

3  Pope  V.  Tucker,  23  r?a.  484, 487  ;  Miller  v.  Bingham,  1  Ired.  Eq. 
423;  36  Am.  Dec.  58  ;  Murphy  v.  Grice,  2  Dev.  &  B.  Eq.  199. 

4  Ante,  i  1&4. 

5  .Sallie  v.  Arnold,  32  Mo.  .'532,  .MO.  See  Chambers  )'.  Perrv,  17  Ala. 
726,  7:»  ;  McDaniel  ?'.  Whitman,  IK  Ala.  ;}43  ;  Nicholson  v.  WiJborn,  13 
Ga.417;  Wood  »>.  Henderson,  3  Miss.  8<13;  Stephens  v.  Doak,  2  Ired. 
Eq.  348;  Davis,  60  Pa.  St.  118,  122;  Godbold  v.  Bass,  12  Rich.  202; 
Daniel,  2  Rich.  Eq.  115  ;  44  Am.  Den.  244  ,  Ryan  v.  Bull,  3  Strob.  Eq. 
S6  ;  Guerrant  v.  Hocker,  7  Leigh,  366, 


2i7  PKKSOXALTY   IN   POSSESSION.  §  170 

6  Walker  i\  Fenner,  28  Ala.  307,  373  ;  Hopper  v.  McWhorter,  13 
Ala.  229,  231;  Chambers  v.  Perry,  17  Ala.  72(i,  730;  Hyde  v.  istone,  9 
Coweu,  230, 232 ;  Cotfee  v.  Kelley,  Busb.  Kq.  4rf,  50 ;  Ordinary  v.  Geiger, 
1  Brev.  484,  485. 

7  Fleet  v.  Perrlns,  4  Q.  B.  500,  508  ;  Walker,  41  Ala.  353,  357 ; 
Hawkiiis  v.  Providence,  119  Mass.  596,  599;  20  Am.  Dec.  353;  Brown 
V.  I-^tz,  13  N.  H.  283,  286  ;  Coffee  v.  Kelley,  Busb.  Eq.  48,  50  ;  Sausev  r. 
Gardner,  1  Hill  (S.  C.)  191  ;  Wallace  v.  Burden,  17  Tex.  467 ;  infra,  n.  8. 

8  Fleet  v.  Perrins,  3  Q.  B.  5.36,  542 ;  Thrasher  v.  Ingham,  32  Ala.  friS, 
60S ;  Broome  v.  King,  10  Ala.  819  ;  Fightmaster  v.  Beasley,  1  Marsh. 
J.  J.  608;  Armstrong  v.  Simonton,  2  Murph.  351,  .i52  ;  supra,  n.  7. 
Cmtrn,  Pope  v.  Tucker,  23  Ga.  487  ;  Wellborn  v.  Weaver,  17  Ga.  267, 
270  ;  Hooper  v.  Howell,  50  Ga.  165,  169. 

9  Because  a  debt  is  of  course  a  chose  in  action :  Post,  §  171. 

10  Schuyler  v.  Hoyle,  5  Johns.  Ch.  196,  212  ;  SmUie,  22  P;i.  .St.  1.30, 
lii ;  post,  i  172. 

11  Hay  ward,  20  Pick.  517,  519-530  ;  post,  R  173, 174. 

12  Harper  v.  Archer,  8  Smedes  &  M.  2-29,  232;  43  Am.  Dec.  472  ; 
Schuyler  r.  Hoyle,  5  Johns.  Ch.  196,  212  ;  Parks  v.  Cushman,  9  Vt. 
320,  325  ;  post,  i  174. 

13  Moss  V.  Ashbrooks,  20  Ark.  128, 134, 135  ;  Carley,  22  Ga.  178, 183; 
Hooper  i'.  Howell,  52  Ga.  315.  .323  ;  50  Ga.  165,  168  ;  Abington  v.  Travis, 
15  Mo.  240,  244  ;  Swanson,  2  Swan,  446,  460. 

14  See  cases  cited  jMst,  i  172. 

15  Vanderveer  v.  Alston,  16  Ala.  494  ;  Walker, 25  Mo.  367  ;  Mardree, 
9  Ired.  295,  305;  Ellis  v.  Bal.lwia.  1  Watts  &  S.  253,  256;  Walden  r. 
Chambers,  8  Ohio  &t.  30  ;  ante,  i  168. 

16  See  McNeill  v.  Arnold,  17  Ark.  lU,  171 ;  Sadler  v.  Bean,  4  Eng. 
202 ;  Abington  v.  Travis,  15  Mo.  240,  244  ;  cases  cited  siqyra. 

17  Infra,  n.  20. 

18  Dardier  t'.  Chapman,  Law  R.  11  Ch.  D.  442;  Crosby  v.  Otis,  32 
Me.  256,  259  ;  Turton,  6  Md.  375,  381. 

19  Clark  V.  Bank,  47  Mo.  17,  19. 

20  Pott  t'.  Clegg,  11  Jur.  283,  290 ;  Carr,  1  Mer.  541,  543 ;  HUl  v. 
Foley,  1  PhiU.  (N.  C;  399,  404. 

21  Scrutton  v.  Patillo,  Law  R.  19  Eq.  369,  373  ;  Fleet  v.  Porrins,  4 
Q.  B.  500,  .508  ;  Lloyd  v.  Pughe,  Law  li.  14  Eq.  241 ;  Law  R.  8  Ch.  88  ; 
ante,  i  128  ;  post,  \  176. 

I  170.  Husband's  rights  in  wife's  personalty  in  posses- 
sion.—  All  the  wife's  personalty  in  posses-sion^  at  the 
time  of  the  marriage,-  or  thereafter  coming  into  posses- 
sion/ vests  in  her  husband  absolutely  on  the  marriage, 
or  as  soon  as  it  is  acquired.*  Thus,  he  owns  absolutely 
money  in  her  possession  at  the  time  of  her  marriage,^ 
or  personalty  bought  by  her ,8  given  lier  J  collected  bj' 
her,^  or  money  arising  from  the  sale  of  her  lands  ;9 
and  i:i  her  place  he  is  tenant  in  common  ^o  or  life  ten- 


§  170  PEESONALTY   IX   POSSESSION.  24S 

ant."  Such  i^roperty  goes  to  his  administrator ; '^  he 
sues  alone  for  an  injury  to  it,'^  and  is  sued  alone  for 
damage  done  by  it ;  '^  if  she  attemi^ts  to  dispose  of  it  he 
may  recover  it  back  ;  '*  if  he  forfeits  her  life  interest  the 
forfeiture  inures  to  the  benefit  of  the  remainderman ;  '^ 
a  gift  of  such  property  to  her  stands  on  th«.'  same  foot- 
ing as  one  of  projjerty  which  she  never  owned,'^ 
wliether  as  between  them  ^^  or  as  against  creditors  ;^3 
and  such  proi>erty  is  liable  for  his  debts.™  He  does 
not,  however,  take  as  purchaser,^!  or  any  greater  inter- 
est than  slie  liad."-'- 

1     Defined,  ante,  «?  16&-16!). 

?    Cram  v.  Uiidlej',  28  N.  H.  537,  541 ;  cases  infra,  n.  4. 

3  Skillman,  13  N.  J.  Eq.  403,  -lOK  ;  cases  infra,  n.  4. 

4  Agar  v.  Blethvii,  1  Tyrw.  &  G.  160 ;  Carre  v.  Brice,7  Mees.  &  W". 
183  ;  Barrack  v.  WcCulloch,  3  Kay  &  J.  110;  Lampliir  c.  Creed,  8  Ves. 
SIW,  600  ;  Kcsncr  r.  Iri'^i,',  !I8  U.  8.  50.  54  ;  Mobley  v.  Leopliart,  47  Ala. 
257, '261;  Colbert  r.  lianiol,32  Ala.  314,  327  ;  Nelson  v.  Goree,  34  Ala. 
865  ;  Hopper  v.  McWliorter,  18  .A.la.  229 ,  Jamison  v.  May,  13  Ark.  600; 
McjVeill  ,}.  Arnold,  17  Ark.  154,  171 ;  Morgan  v.  Thames,  14  Conn.  1)9. 
103  ;  Pope  V.  Tucker,  23  Ga.  484,  487  ;  FarreU  v.  Patterson,  43  Dl.  52, 58  ; 
Mahoney  v.  Bland,  14  lud.  I7fi ;  Hawkins  v.  Craig,  6  Mon.  254,  257; 
Quigley  V.  Muse,  15  La.  An.  107 ;  Carloton  v.  Lovejoy,  54  Me.  445  ; 
Jordan,  52  Mv.  320  ;  Crosby  v.  Otis,  32  Mp.  256,  25!) ;  Sabel  v.  Slingluff, 
52  Md.  132, 135  ;  I'iumnier  v.  Jurman,  44  Md.  632, 637  ;  Hawkins  v.  Prov- 
idence, 111)  Mass.  o:)fi,  5J!) ;  20  Am.  Rep.  353 ;  Legg,  8  Mass.  !i9, 101 ;  Hop- 
kins V.  Carev,  23  Miss.  54, 58  ;  Clarlc  i'.  Bank,  47  Mo.  17, 10 ;  Walker,  24 
Mo.  367  ;  Abington  v.  Travis,  15  ISIo.  240.  244  ;  Cram  r.  Dudley,  28  N.  H. 
537,  541 ;  Hall  v.  Young,  37  N.  H.  135,  144  ;  Skillman,  13  N.  J.  Eq.  40.1. 
406  ;  Fletcher  v.  Updike,  3  Hun,  350;  Stokes  r.  Macken,  62  Barb.  1-15. 
14!);  Black  t\  Justice,  86  N.  C.  504,  511;  Armstrong  i>.  Simonton,  2 
Murph.  a51,  352 ;  Walden  v.  Chambers,  7  Ohio  -St.  30  ;  Moyer,  77  Pa.  .St. 
482,485;  Davis,  60  Pa.  St.  118.  122;  Ewing  r.  Helm,  2  Tenn.  Ch.  3(iS, 
30!) ;  Cox  V.  Scott,  9  Baxt.  305,  313 ;  Wallace  v.  Burden.  19  Tex.  467  ; 
Rawlings  v.  Bounds,  27  Vt.  17;  Bent,  44  VU  555,  560;  Barrou,  24  Vt. 
376,  392 ;  ante,  §  163. 

5  Cox  V.  Scott,  9  Baxt.  3a5,  310  ;  ante,  i  167. 

6  Lamphir  v.  Creed,  8  Ves.  509, 600. 

7  Ewing  V.  Helm,  2  Tenn.  Ch.  368,  369.  See  Bnrns  v.  Hudson,  1 
Ala.  Sel.  Cas.  321  ;  Frierson,  21  Ala.  54);  Campbell  v.  Galbreath,  12 
Bush,  459,  4(M  ;  Polk  v.  Allen,  19  Mo.  467. 

8  Tnrton,  6  Md.  375,  381  ;  Cox  v.  Scott,  9  Baxt.  305,  311. 

9  Kesner  r.  Trigg,  98  V.  S.  50,  W  ;  Crosby  v.  Otis,  32  Me.  256,  2.5!) ; 
Sabel  1'.  SlingluIT,  52  Jld.  132,  135;  Plummer  .-.  Jarman,  44  Jld.  632, 
637  ;  Hackott  v.  Shuford,  86  N.  C.  144,  149  ;  Black  v.  Justice,  86  N.  C. 
504,  511  ;  Cox  V.  Scott,  9  Baxt.  305,  312  ;  ante,  i  136. 

10    Hopper  v.  McWhorter,  18  Ala.  229,  231  ;  cases  ante,  J  169,  n.  6. 


249  CHOSES   IN   ACTION.  §  17a 

11  Colbert  v.  Daniel,  32  Ala.  314,  327 ;  Smith  v.  Atwood,  14  Ga.  402  ; 
lJurnall  r.  Artams,  13  JNIon.  B.  273  ;  Robinson  v.  Rice,  2fl  Mo.  229,  2:i4  ; 
Warner,  :«  Miss.  547,  54!) ;  Stocl<ton  v.  Martin,  2  Bay,  471 ;  Green  v. 
GoodaU,  1  Colli.  4(M  ;  Deadrieh  v.  Armour,  10  Humpli.  5S3. 

12  Colbert  )'.  Daniel,  32  Ala.  314,  327 ;  Standiford  v.  Devol,  21  Ind. 
404,  407  ;  ilawlcins  v.  Craig,  6  Mon.  254,  257;  Crosby  v.  Otis,  32  Me.  256, 
25a ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ^  460. 

13  Rawlings  v.  Bounds,  27  Vt.  17. 

14  Cram  «i.  Dudley,  28  N.  11.  5:!7,  511. 

15  Casey  r.  Wi-^^in,  S  Gray,  231. 

16  Warner,  33  Mlss.  547,  54X 

17  Consult  ante,  I  127. 

18  See  Lockhart  v.  Cameron,  23  Ala.  355 ;  W'esco,  52  Pa.  St.  195  ; 
Bent,  44  Vt.  555,  SCO. 

19  SeeFletcberv.  Updike,  3  Hun,  .350. 

20  Morgan  v.  Thames,  14  Conn.  09,  ICJ. 

21  Willis  V.  Snelling,  6  Rich.  280,  2S4. 

22  Robinson  v.  Rice,  20  Mo.  229. 1?A. 


Article  III.  —  Choses  ln  Actioit. 

I  m.  Defined. 

(  I  172.  Chattels  out  of  possession. 

?  173.  Bonds,  stock,  notes,  etc. 

i  174.  Legacies,  distributive  shares,  etc. 

§  175.  Remainders,  possibilities,  etc. 

I  176.  Husband's  rights  in. 

?  171.  Cho393  in  action  defined.  —  The  word  "chose- 
In-aetion"  has  never  been  satisfactorily  defined.^  It 
means  primarily  "a  right  to  be  asserted  in  an  action  at 
law,"^  *'a  right  to  recover  something  in  an  action,"^ 
but  it  may  also  be  an  equitable  right,*  and  the  right  to 
sue  is  not  necessarily  involved,  for  United  States  bonds 
are  choses  in  action.^  It  includes  all  rights  to  one's 
ascertained  chattels  (corporeal  personalty)  out  of  one's 
actual  or  constructive  possession,*  and  all  one's  incor- 
poreal personalty  in  hand  or  not,^  all  debts  or  evidence 
of  indebtedness,^  and  all  unascertained  interests.^  To 
illustrate  :  A  wife's  right  to  a  chattel,  wrongfully  taken 
from  her  before  marriage,  is  a  chose  in  action ;  i"  so  is 
her  interest  in  one  half  of  a  lot  of  slaves  before  they 


g  172  CHOSES    IN   ACTION.  250 

are  divided  ;"  so  is  her  "thirds  "  in  a  former  husband's 
estate  before  it  is  settled  up ;  ^^  so  is  her  interest  in  a 
lottery  prize  before  she  has  received  it,^^  or  in  the  pro- 
ceeds of  realty  sold  in  partition  proceedings,"  or  in 
realty  left  to  a  trustee  to  be  sold  and  distributed  to 
her;^  so  are  her  bonds,  stocks,  notes,  etc.,*^  her  lega- 
cies, etc.,^^  her  remainders,  etc. ;  '^  and  so  is  money  in 
her  name  in  bank.'*  Tlie  income  of  a  chose  in  action 
is  a  chose  in  action.™ 

1  See  Bnshnoll  v.  Kennedy,  9  Wall.  387  ;  Hill  v.  Winne,  i  Biss.  275  ; 
Magee  v.  Toland,  8  Port.  40 ;  Pitts  v.  Curtis,  4  Ala.  .'J50 ;  Devlne  v. 
Harvey,  7  Mon.  443  ;  Haskell  v.  Blair,  3  Cush.  3*4  ;  Zollar  ?•.  Jaiivrin, 
49  N.  H.  11-5  ;  6  Am.  Rep.  467 ;  Gillett  r.  Fairohild,  4  Denio,  SO ,  Bamsey 
V.  Gould,  .S7  Barb.  408  ;  People  r.  Troja,  19  Wend.  7.5  ;  Dial  v.  Gary,  14 
S.  C.  .WS;  Gibson,  43  Wis.  23;  28  Am.  Rep.  527;  Noonan  v.  Orton,  34 
Wis.  25U  ;  17  Am.  Rep.  441  ;  and  eases  cited  in  this  article. 

2  Fleet  v.  Perrins,  Law  R.  4  Q.  B.  500, 50S  ;  Law  E.  3  Q.  B.  5.36,  512. 

3  Fleet  v.  Perrins,  Law  R.  4  Q.  B.  500,  .508. 

4  Oswald  II.  Hoover,  43  I«d.  .360,  369 ;  Gillis  v.  McCoy,  4  Dev.  172, 179. 

5  Brown  v.  Bokee,  53  5td.  1.55,  164.  See  Dundns  r.  Dntens,  1  Ves. 
Jr.  106  ;  Seawen  v.  Blunt,  7  Ves.  294  ;  Wildman,  9  Ves.  174 ;  Hutchlna 
V.  State,  12  Met.  421. 

6  Seeon?e,  ??16fi-170. 

7  Arnold  r.  Buggies,  1  R.  I.  165,  173  ;  post,  U  17^175. 

8  Brown  v.  Bokee,  53  JId.  155,  164  ;  liosl,  |  173. 

9  Hooper  v.  Howell,  52  Ga.  315, 323  ;  50  Ga.  165,  IGS  ;  cases  ante,  J  169, 
n.  13  ;  post,  J  174. 

10  Armstrong  %\  Simonton,  2  Murph.  3.51,  .352. 

11  5I0SS  r.  Ashbrooks,  20  Ark.  12S,  IM,  135  ;  Corley,  22  Ga.  178, 183; 
Swanson,  2  Swan,  446,  460. 

12  Harper  v.  Archer,  8  Smedes  <fc  M.  229,  232  ;  43  Am.  Dec.  472. 

13  Salter  v.  Williams,  10  Ga.  186,  189. 

14  Oswald  V.  Hoover,  43  Md.  360,  369. 

15  Smille,  22  Pa.  St.  130,  133 ;  post,  I  174. 

16  Post,  ?  17.3.  , 

17  Post,  I  174. 

18  Post,  i  '75. 

19  Scrutton  c.  PatUlo,  Law  R.  19  Eq.  369,  373  ;  aiite,  J  169. 

20  Wilkinson  v.  Charlesworth,  11  Jur.  644, 645. 

§  172.  Chattels  out  of  possession  as  choses  in  action.  — 
Chattels  out  of  tlie  actual  or  constru<;tive  possession  ol 
the  husband  or  wife^  —  that  is  to   say,  ciiattels  held 


251  CHOSES   IX    ACTION.  '^  173 

adversely  by  a  third  person,"^  are  choses  in  action.^ 
Thus,  the  wife's  interest  in  a  chattel  wrongfully 
taken  from  her  is  merelj'^  a  chose  in  action,*  but  it  be- 
comes a  chattel  in  possession  if  replevied  \>j  the  hus- 
band.^ A  contrary  view  has  sometimes  prevailed,  and 
any  chattel  belonging  to  the  Avife,  whether  held  by 
another  adversely  or  not,  has  been  treated  as  a  chose  in 
possession,*  but  this  view  is  not  the  better  one."  How 
far  money  can  be  treated  as  a  chattel  seems  doubtful  :* 
on  the  one  hand,  it  may  be  said  that  any  one  who  holds 
another's  money  is  a  debtor  to  tliat  other,^  and  every 
debt  is  a  chose  in  action ;  ^^  on  the  other,  possession  of 
one's  agent  is  one's  own  possession,"  and  money  col- 
lected by  the  wife's  agent  has  always  been  treated  as  in 
the  possession  of  her  husband.^^ 

1  Ante,  \l  167-169. 

2  Ante,  \  169. 

3  Thra-sher  r.  Ijigham,  32  Ala.  W5,.e6S  ;  ante,  \  169. 

4  Armstrong  v.  Simonton,  2  Murph.  351,  352. 

5  McNeill  v.  Arnold,  17  Ark.  154, 171. 

6  Pope  V.  Tupkpr,  23  Ga,  •)S4,  487  ;  Wellborn  t>.  Weaver,  17  Ga.  267, 
270  ;  liooper  v.  Howell,  .W  Ga,  165,  169.  But  see  Hooper  v.  Howell,  52 
Ga.  315,  ;{23. 

7  1  Bish.  M.  W.  \  71 ;  ante,  \  169. 

8  Ante,  \  169. 

9  A  debtor  is  one  "  who  may  he  constrained  to  pay  what  he 
owes  "  :  Bouv.  Law  Diet.  "  debtor  "  ;  and  any  one  who  has  another's 
money  may  be  sued  for  money  "had  and  received."  The  wife's 
banker  is  her  debtor  :  Ante,  J  169. 

10  Brown  v.  Bokee,  53  Md.  155,  164  ;  ante,  \  17L 

11  Gwynn  v.  Hamilton,  29  Ala.  2.33,  2.37. 

12  Turton,  6  Md.  375,  3S1.  .See  Dardier  v.  Chapman,  Law  R.  11 
Ch.  D.  442  ;  Crosby  v.  Otis,  32  Me.  256,  259. 

\  173.  Bonds,  shares  of  stock,  promissory  notes,  etc.,  as 
choses  in  action.  —  Bonds,'  shares  of  stock, ^  promissory 
notes,2  and  other  such  incorporeal  property,*  or  evi- 
dences of  indebtedness,^  though  in  possession,*  are 
choses  in  action.  The  fact  that  they  are  negotiable 
makes  no  difference,'  though  a  contrary  view  was  for- 


g  174  CHOSES   IN  ACTION.  252 

merly    lield;»    but    if    tliuy   pass    as    money  without 
indorsement  they  are  treated  as  money.* 

1  Brown  v.  Bokee,  53  Md.  155, 164.  See  Dundas  v.  Dutens,  1  Ves. 
Jr.  19(i;  Scawen  r.  Blunt,  7  Ves.  2i)4  ;  Wildman,  i)  Ves.  17-1 ;  Hutchins 
V.  State,  12  Met.  421 ;  aiaymaker  v.  Bank,  10  Pa.  St.  373,  376. 

2  Arnold  v.  Buggies,  1  R.  I.  165,  178.  See  Nicholson  v.  Drury, 
Law  K.  7  Ch.  Div.  4i,  o5;  Blount  v.  Bestland,  5  Ves.  Jr.  515  ;  Gounard 
V.  Eslava,  20  Ala.  732  ;  Winslow  v.  Crocker,  17  Me.  29,  31 ;  Brown  i . 
Bokee,  53  Md.  l.>5.  164  ;  Phelps,  20  Pick.  556,  5(iO;  Stanwood,  17  Mass. 
57  ;  lieciprocity  Bank,  22  N.  Y.  9, 

3  Dixon,  18  Ohio,  '13,  11.5.  See  Richards,  2  Barn.  &  Ado'  447; 
Gaters  v.  Madelev,  6  Mees.  &  W.  427  ;  i.inderinan  i:  Talley,  1  Houst, 
523;  Turpin  r.  Thompson,  2  Met.  I  Kv.)  420;  Kuss  i-.  George,  45  N.  H. 
467,  46U  ;  Wilder  v.  Aldrich,  2  R.  I.  618. 

4  See  Hore  v.  Becher,  12  Sim.  405,  467 ;  cases  cited  supra. 

5  See  Scrutton  v.  Patillo,  Law  R.  19  Eq.  30:),  373  ;  cases  cited  siqira. 

6  Brown  v.  Bokee,  53  Md.  l.'>5, 167, 103. 

7  Russ  I'.  George,  43  N.  H.  4G7,  469  ;  cases  cited  snpra,  n.  3. 

8  See  Barlow  v.  Bishop,  1  East,  432  ;  McNeilage  v.  Holloway,  1 
Barn.  '&  Aid.  213. 

9  See  Brown  v.  Bokee,  ."iS  Md.  1.55.  lf.^  i64,  165.  And  see  Lender- 
man  t'.  Talley,  1  Houst.  523  ;  Russ  r  jeorge,  45  N.  H.  467  ;  Holmes, 
28  Vt.  765.    As  to  money,  see  ante,  iz  166,  169,  172. 

§  174.  Legacies,  distributive  shares,  etc.,  as  Glioses  in 
action.  —  Legacies ^  and  distributive  shares'^  until  deliv- 
ery are  choses  in  action.*  Until  the  estate  is  settled 
up  the  administrator  holds  for  the  estate  and  ad- 
versely to  the  legatees  and  dLsfributees,*  and  all  prop- 
erty adversely  held  is  chose  in  action  ;  ^  but  after  it  is 
settled  up  he  may  hold  simply  as  agent  for  the  parties 
entitled,  that  is  to  say,  instead  of  a  delivery  to  such 
parties,  tlipre  may  be  a  delivery  from  himself  as  ad- 
ministrator to  liimself  individually,"  and  such  parties 
may  be  in  pcssession  through  him  as  agent  or  bailee.^ 
Ordinarilj%  actual  possession  of  a  specific  legacy,  how- 
ever acquired,  makes  it  property  in  possession.^  The 
same  principles  are  applicable  to  a  wife's  interests 
in  property  to  be  sold  and  divided,*  or  simply  to  be 
divided.!'' 

1  Walker,  41  Ala.  353,  XiS ;  Wells  v.  Tyler,  2b  N.  H.  aiO,  312  ;  inf7-a, 
n.  3. 


253  CHOSES   IN   ACTIOX.  §  175 

2  Hayward,  20  Pick.  517,  519-530  ;  infra,  n.  3. 

3  Carr  v.  Taylor,  10  Ves.  Jr.  574,  n7S  ;  Bibb  v.  McKinlev,  9  Port.  636 ; 
Machem,  28  Ala.  374  ;  Walker,  41  Ala.  3.53,  358  ;  Stewart.  31  Ala.  207, 
216 ;  Jacks  v.  Aflair,  31  Ark.  616  ;  Sadler  v.  Bean,  9  Ark.  202 ;  Cantrell, 
16  Ark.  1.54  ;  Wiggins  v.  Blonnt.  33  Ga.  409  ;  Hooper  v.  Howell,  .50  Ga. 
165 ;  Chappell  v.  Causev,  11  Ga.  25  ;  Bell.  1  Ga.  637  ;  ilcCaulev  v.  Rodes, 
7  Mon.  B.  462;  Willis  v.  Roberts,  48  Me.  2.57;  Turton,  6  Md.  37.5.  382; 
Norris  v.  Lantz,  18  Md.  2G0 ;  Havward,  20  Pick.  517,  519  ;  Foster  v. 
Fifleld,  20  Pick.  67,  70 ;  Com.  v.  Manbv,  12  Pick.  173,  175  ;  Lowrv  i-. 
Houston,  4  Miss.  394  ;  Wade  v.  Grimes.  8  Miss.  425  ;  Walker,  24  Mo. 
367;  Gillet  %i.  Camp,  19  Mo.  404  ;  Polk  v.  Allen,  19  Mo.  467;  Abington 
%K  Travis,  15  Mo.  240,  244  ;  Leakey  v.  Maupin,  10  :Mo.  36S  ;  47  Am.  Dec. 
120  ;  Wells  V.  Tyler,  25  N.  H.  340,  ai2  ;  Wheeler  ?■.  Moore,  13  N.  H.  478  ; 
Marston  v.  Carter,  12  N.  H.  1.59  ;  Schuvler  v.  Hovle,  5  Johns.  Ch.  196, 
212  ;  Shirley,  9  Paige,  363  ;  Hardie  v.  Cotton,  1  Ir'ed.  Eq.  61,  a5  ;  Poin- 
dexteriT.  Blackburn,  1  Ired.  Eq. 286,288  ;  Eevel,2Dev.  &  B.  272  ,  Curry 
V.  Fulkinson,  14  Ohio,  100;  Skinner,  5  Pa.  St' 262,  263  ;  Ellis  )'.  Bald- 
win, 1  Watts  &  S.  2.53  ;  Stewart,  3  Watts  &  S.  476  ;  Dennison  ?'.  Nigh, 

2  Watts,  90 ;  Kirtzinger,  2  Ashm.  4.55;  Lewis  v.  Price,  3  Rich.  Eq. 
172;   Hill,  1  Strob.  Eq.  1  ;  Dawson,  2  Strob.  Eq.  34  ;  Harris  v.  T:ivlor. 

3  .Sneed,  .536,  .540  ;  Hall  v.  McLain.  11  Humph.  425  ;  Prohati-  r.  Xil(^s.  32 
Vt.  775,  778  ;  Short  v.  Moore,  10  Vt.  6G4  ;  Parks  v.  Cushman,  9  Vt.  320. 
325. 

4  .Schuyler  v.  Hoyle,  5  Johns.  Ch.  196,  212  ;  ante,  §  169. 

5  Ante,  R  169, 172. 

6  See  Mardree,  9  Ired.  295,  305  ;  Parks  v.  Cushman,  9  Vt.  320,  325. 

7  Ante,  ?  169. 

8  Sadler  v.  Bean,  4  Eng.  202  ;  Abington  v.  Travis,  15  Mo.  240,  244. 

9  Smilie,  22  Pa.  St.  1.30, 133. 

10  Moss  V.  Ashbrooks,  20  Ark.  128,  134,  1.35;  Corley,  22  Ga.  178,  183  ; 
Swanson,  2  Swan,  446,  460. 

§  175.  Bemainders,  possibilities,  etc.,  as  choses  in  action. 
— ^^  Rights  of  future  enjoyment,  whethei*  vested  ^  or  con- 
tinoent,^  the  various  kinds  of  remainders,  reversions, 
etc.,  are  at  most  choses  in  action.^  It  is  said  tliat  a 
husband  has  no  rights  at  all  in  property  which  he  can- 
not get  possession  of  during  coverture,  without  being  a 
trespasser,*  for  how  can  there  be  a  right  of  action  until 
there  is  a  present  right  of  enjoyment?^  So  that  even 
when  the  husband  was  life  tenant  and  his  wife  remain- 
der-man, his  right  to  sell^  the  whole  property  was 
denied.''  But  there  are  cases  recognizing  the  same 
rights  in  future  as  in  present  interests.^ 

1  Caplinger  v.  Sullivan,  2  Humph.  548,  549 ;  37  Am.  Dec.  575  ;  infra. 
n.  3. 

2  Price  v.  Sessions,  3  How.  624,  635  ;  Taylor  v.  Wilson,  8  Rich.  28.5, 
Z86. 

H.  &  W. -22. 


}  176  CHOSES  IN  ACTION.  254 

3  Box,  6  I.  R.  Eq.  174, 195 ;  Gibson  v.  Land,  27  Ala.  117 ;  Cox  v. 
Morrow,  14  Ark.  603,  620;  Lynn  v.  Bradley,  1  Met.  (Ky.)  2.32,  235; 
Ewins? )'.  Handley,  4  Lift.  346,  3.56 ;  Banks  v.  Marksberry,  3  Litt.  275, 
284  ;  Ring  v.  BaldVidge,  7  Hon.  B.  535 ;  Holloway  v.  Conner,  3  M.on.  B. 
395  ;  Turner  v.  Davis,  1  Mon.  B.  151,  152  :  Houck  v.  CampUn,  25  Mo. 
378,  .379  ;  Hardie  v.  Cotton,  1  Ired.  Eq.  61,  65  ;  Howell,  3  Ired.  Eq.  528 ; 
47  Am.  Dec.  335;  McBride  v.  Choate,  2  Ired.  Eq.  610,  613;  Larey  v. 
Beagley,  9  Rich.  Eq.  119,  122  ;  Duke  v.  Palmer,  10  Rich.  Eq.  380  ;  Co- 
been  V.  Gordon,  1  Hill  Ch.  .51 ;  Caplinger  v.  Sullivan.  2  Humph.  548, 
549;  37  Am.  Dec.  575  ;  Buggi).  Franklin,  4  Sneed,  129  ;  Tune  v.  Cooper, 
4  Sneed,  296;  Crittenden  v.  Tosey,  1  Head,  311  ;  Hayes  v.  Ewell,  4 
Gratt.  11, 15  ;  Henrv  r.  Graves,  16  Gratt.  244  ;  Street  r.  Pinsley,  2  Pat. 
&  H.  612  ;  Dade  v.  Al  -xander,  1  Wash.(Va.)  30 ;  Upshaw,  2  Hen.  &  M. 
381  ;  3  Am.  Dec.  632.    These  are  nearly  all  slave  cases. 

4  Hair  v.  Avery,  28  Ala.  267. 

5  See  Lynn  v.  BratHey*  1  Met.  (Ky.)  2.32,  235. 

6  See  post,  ?  181. 

7  Crittenden  v.  Tosey,  1  Head,  311. 

8  Walker,  41  Ala.  .353,  3.57  ;  Walker  v.  Fenner,  28  Ala.  367, 373  ;  Pitts 
V.  Curtis,  4  Ala.  3.50,  .3.51  ;  Smilie,  22  Pa.  St.  i:«),  1.33 ;  Webb,  21  Pa.  .St. 
248,  260 ;  Woelper,  1  Pa,  St.  71 ;  2^ost,  Assignment,  §  181. 

g  176.  Husband's  rights  in  wife's  choses  in  action.  —  The 
husband's  only  right  over  his  wife's  choses  in  action  is 
to  reduce  them  to  pos.session ;  ^  when  so  reduced  they 
are  personalty  in  possession,  and  vest  absolutely  in 
him.''  This  right  to  reduce  is  said  to  be  a  personal  one,' 
and  must  be  exercised  during  coverture ;  *  it  ceases 
with  the  death  of  either  party,*  or  with  absolute  di- 
vorce.^ Ignoring  the  case  of  divorce,  in  which  case 
the  chose  in  action  simply  remains  the  wife's  discharged 
of  the  husband's  power  to  reduce,'  and  that  of  the  death 
of  the  wife,  in  which  case  it  goes  to  her  representative,* 
who  at  common  law  was  always  her  husband,'  it  is 
usually  said  that  choses  in  action  differ  from  choses  in 
possession  in  tliat  the  former  survive  to  the  wife.'" 
More  correctly,  if  a  husband  dies  before  reducing  to 
possession  his  wife's  choses  in  action,  antenuptial*' or 
postnuptial,'^  they  survive  to  her  in  her  own  right.'' 
Therefore  a  husband  cannot  dispose  of  them  by  will,'' 
and  his  right  to  assign,'*  release,'^  exchange  them," 
etc.,  exists  only  as  a  part  of  his  right  to  reduce  them  to 
possession.'^    Reduction  to  possession  tlius  remains  to 


255  CHOSES   IN   ACTIOX.  §  176 

be  considered.'^  Though  choses  in  action  are  "  prop- 
erty," ^o  they  are  not  so  far  the  husband's  property  as 
to  pass  under  an  assignment  of  "all  liis  personal  prop- 
erty," 21  or  probably  that  his  rights  in  them  can  be 
seized  by  his  creditors,'^'-'  or  cannot  be  destroyed  by 
statute.^  While  his  wife's  shares  are  unreduced,  the 
husband  is  not  liable  as  a  member  of  the  company 
wliich  issued  them.''* 

1  Post,  M  177-183. 

2  Cox  V.  Scott,  7  Baxt.  305,  310  ;  ante,  i  170. 

^  Andover  v.  Merrimack.  37  N.  H.  4:J7,  444.  Compare  Ware,  23 
Gratt.  670,  673.    See  2^ost,  I  177. 

4  Rice  V.  McReynolds,  8  Lea,  36,  40. 

5  Buchingham  v.  Carter,  2  Disn.  41,  43,  44. 

6  Legg,  8  Mass.  99,  101  ;  Kirtzinger,  2  Ashm.  455,  463 ;  Stewart  M. 
&  f).  J  445.  Divorce  a  mensa  lias  no  effect:  Ames  v.  Chew,  5  Met.  320, 
324  ;  Lewis  v.  Lee,  3  Barn.  &  C.  2J1 ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  J  445. 

7  Supra,  n.  6. 

8  O'Connor  v.  Harris,  81  N.  C.  279,  282  ;  Buchingham  v.  Carter,  2 
Disn.  41,  43  ;  Holmes,  28  Vt.  765,  768  ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  §  465. 

9  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ?  465. 

10    Chappelle  v.  OIney,  1  Sawy.  401,  409  ;  Rice  v.  McRevnolds,8  Lea, 
39,  40  ;  Ware,  28  Gratt.  670,  672  ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  JJ  460,  465. 
H    Hay  ward,  30  Pick.  517,  522  ;  infra,  n.  13. 

12  Boozer  v.  Addison,  2  Rich.  Eq.  273,  279 ;  46  Am.  Dec.  43  ;  infra, 
n.  13. 

13  Coffin,  2  P.  Wms.  497 ;  Howell  v.  Maine,  3  Lev.  403  ;  Scawen  %>. 
Blunt,  7  Ves.  294  ;  Fleet  v.  Perrins,  Law  K.  3  Q.  B.  536,  511  ;  4  Q.  B.  500  ; 
Mc Daniel  v.  Whitman,  16  Ala.  343  ;  Puryear,  12  Ala.  13  ;  Lenderman, 
1  Houst.  523,  524  ;  Chappell  v.  Causey,  11  Ga.  25;  Miller.  1  Marsh.  J.  J. 
169  ;  Brown  v.  Latigford,  3  Bibb.  497  ;  Pike  v.  Collins,'  33  Me.  3S,  4! ; 
Bond  V.  Conway,  11  Md.  512  ;  Hayward,  20  Pick.  517,  522  ;  Burleigh,  22 
N.  H.  118 ;  Snowhill,  2  N.  J.  Eq.  30  ;  Orphan  v  Strain,  2  Bradf.  34,  41  ; 
Revel,  2  Dev.  &  B.  272  ;  Curry  v.  Fulkinsoii,  14  Ohio,  100  ;  Needles,  7 
Ohio  St.  432;  Tritt  v.  Colwell,  31  I'a.  St.  22S  ;  Lodge  r.  Hamilton,  2 
Serg.  <fe  R.  491,  493  ;  Boozer  v.  Addisi.n,  2  Uic-h.  Eq.  273,  279  ;  46  Am. 
Dec.  43  ;  Richardson  v.  Daggett,  4  Vt.  ::.'«;,  '.'Ai  ;  supra,  n.  10. 

14  Grebill,  87  Pa.  St.  105, 103  ;  Upshaw,  2  Hen.  &  M.  3S1  ;  3  Ara.  Doc. 
0^2. 

15  Post,  ?  181. 

16  Post,  I  182. 

17  Post,  ?  180. 

18  See  Needles,  7  Ohio  St.  432,  433,  433  ;  Dold  v.  Geiger,  2  Gratt.  93, 
110  ;  post,  U  177-183. 

19  Post,  ??  177-183. 

20  Barton,  32  Md.  212,  224,  225.    Discussed  post,  U  229,  230. 


I  177  KEDUCTIOX   TO   POSSESSION.  256 

21  Skinner,  o  Pa.  St..  T^l,  1C>X    See  Sherrington  v.  Yates,  12  Mees.  & 
W.  855,  864  ;  Mitford,  9  Ves.  87. 

22  This  has  been  differently  decided  in  different  States :  I'ost,  §  177. 

23  Ante,  ??  22,  165. 

2i    Dodgson  v.  Bell,  3  Eiig.  L.  &  Eq.  542,  &46. 


Article  IV. 

—  Reductiox  to  Possession. 

?  n: 

How  far  a  personal  right. 

?  ITS. 

The  intention  and  the  act. 

i  170. 

Getting  possession  or  receiving  payraent. 

{  ISO. 

Substitntion. 

I  ISl. 

Assignment. 

?  182. 

lielease. 

I  183. 

Suit. 

g  177.  How  far  the  right  to  reduce  is  a  mere  personal 
Tight. — The  riglit  to  reduce  is  said  to  be  per.sonal  with 
the  husband,!  and  therefore  the  guardian  of  a  lunatic 
husband  was  held  incajiable  of  exercising  his  right  for 
liim  ;  ^  and  the  right  was  formerly  not  assignable,^  and 
in  many  States  the  husband's  creditors  could  neither 
compel  him  to  reduce,*  nor  acquire  any  riglits  in  the 
choses  in  action;'^  still  in  other  States  the  contrary  is 
held  as  to  creditors,®  and  an  infant's  guardian  was 
allowed  to  reduce,^  and  money  paid  into  court  for  a 
lunatic  was  held  a  reduction,^  and  the  right  to  reduce 
is  now  tjencrally  assignable:^  so  that  rules  applicable 
in  all  States  cannot  be  laid  down.  In  New  Hampshire, 
Xorth  Carolina,  Pennsylvania,  Rhode  Island,  South 
Carolina,  Tennessee,  and  A^ermont,  the  husband's  cred- 
itors have  no  rights  in  his  wife's  choses  in  action ;^^  in 
Delaware,  INIaryland,  Massachusetts,  Missouri,  and 
Virginia  they  have.^i 

1  Andover  v.  Merrimack,  37  N.  H.  437,  444  ;  Perrj-  v.  W'heelock,  49 
Vt.  §3,  67. 

2  Andover  v.  Merrimack,  37  N.  H.  437,  444. 

3  Post,  I  181. 

4  Gallego,  2  Brock.  285,  2S7, 231 ;  ?)i/ra,  n.  5. 


257  REDUCTIOX   TO   POSSESSION.  §  178 

5  Gallego,  2  Brock.  285,  287  ;  Coffin  v.  Morrill,  22  N.  H.  352,  350,  357 ; 
Poor  V.  Hazleton,  15  N.  H.  5fi4,  567,  56J ;  Wheeler  v.  Moore,  13  N.  H. 
478,  481  ;  Marston  v.  Carter,  12  N.  H.  159, 165;  Brvaii  v.  Spruill,  4  Jones 
Eq.  27,  28  ;  McVaugh,  10  Phila.  457,  459  ;  Deniiisoii  v.  Nigh,  l'  Watts, 
90  ;  Timbers  i>.  Katz,  6  Watts  <fe  S.  290,  299  ;  Mellinger  v.  Bausman, 
45  Pa.  St.  522,, .528  ;  Stoner  v.  Com.  16  Pa.  St.  387,  392  ;  Skinner,  5  Pa.  St. 
262,  263  ;  Arnold  ,'.  Ruggles,  1  R.  I.  165,  175  ;  Godbohl  v.  Boss,  12  Kieh. 
202;  Harris?'.  Taylor,  3  Sneed,  536,  540 ;  Snowden  v.  Lindsli'v,  r,  ('old. 
122. 126 ;  Short  )'.  Moore,  10  Vt.  446  ;  Probate  v.  Niles,  32  Vt.  775,  778, 
779  ;  Perry  v.  Wheelock,  49  Vt.  63,  67. 

e  Johnson  j.  Fleetwood,  1  Har.  (Del.)  442  ;  Babb  v.  Elliott,  4  Har. 
(Del.)  466;  Peacock  v.  Pembroke,  4  Md.  280,  282;  State  v.  Krebs,  6 
Hir.  &  J.  31,  m  ;  Wheeler  v.  Bowen,  20  Pick.  563,  567  ;  Holbrook  r. 
Waters,  19  Pick.  3.54,  .355  ;  Alexander  v.  Crittenden,  4  Allen,  342,  .343; 
Strong  V.  Smith.  I  .Mot.  476;  Hockaday  u.  Bailee,  26  Mo.  219,  220,  221; 
War3,  28  Gratt.  670,  673  ;  Yerby  v.  Lynch,  3  Gratt.  439,  474,  477. 

7  Ware,  28  Gratt.  670,  673. 

8  Jenkins,  5  Russ.  183, 187. 

9  Post,  I  181. 

10  Cases  s^tpra,  n.  5. 

11  Cases  supra,  n.  6. 

'i>  178.  The  intontion  and  the  act  requisite  to  a  reduction. 
—  I!;  is  thus  ^  a  matter  of  jiersonal  choice  with  a  husband 
whether  he  Avill  reduce  his  wife's  choses  in  action  to 
possession,^  and  therefore  though  he  got  possession  of 
her  property  it  is  a  question  of  intent  whether  it  is  or  is 
not  reduced  to  his  possession.^  He  may  get  possession 
ars  administrator,  agent,  or  trustee,*  but  to  reduce  ho 
must  take  possession  as  husband.^  Still  whenever  he 
does  take  possession  he  is  presumed  to  do  so  as  hus- 
band, and  the  burden  of  proof  lies  on  the  party  nega- 
tiving reduction, 6  just  as  any  jjroperty  in  the  possession 
of  the  husband  or  wife  is  presumed  to  belong  to  the 
hu.sband.'  But  intention  to  reduce  is  not  enough,  a3 
long  as  the  property  if  a  chattel  is  adversely  held,^  or 
if  incorporeal  stands  in  the  wife's  name,^  there  is  no 
reduction  —  the  intention  must  be  accompanied  by 
acts.i"  The  most  usual  modes  of  reducing  choses  in 
action  to  pos.session  are:"  (1)  by  getting  possession  of 
a  chattel  or  receiving  payment  of  a  debt ;  i'^  (2)  by  sub- 
stituting the  wife's  chose  in  action  for  another  in  the 
husband's  name;'^  (3)   by  assignment;"    (4)    by  re- 


g  179  REDUCTION    TO   POSSESSION.  258 

lease  ;^^    and  (.5)  by  suit.i«     Reduction   may  be  pre- 
sumed from  la^ise  of  time." 

1  Antf,  ?  17S.  When  creflitors  are  not  concerned  aiul  the  husband 
Is  sni.  juris  all  agree  to  this  statement. 

2  Arnold  v.  Rnggles,  1  R.  I.  16.5,  17.5  ;  ante,  ?  178. 

3  Tomlinson,  16Vos.  41S,  41«  ;  McCampboll,  2  Lca.fiGl,  66.'!;  31  Am. 
Rep.  623  ;  Barron,  24  Vt.  376,  3;)2. 

4  Ante,  U  16S,  169,  174. 

5  Barron,  24  Vt.  376,  392.  See  Machem,  2?  Ala.  374  ;  Standiford  v. 
Devol,21  Ind.  404,407,  Vreeland,  15  N.  J.  Eq.  512;  Johnston,  31  Pa. 
St.  4.50,  453  ;  ante,  I  168. 

6  Moyer,  77  Pa,  St.  482,  485. 

7  Ante,  I  119. 

8  Post,  1 179  ;  ante,  ?  169. 

9  Post,  ?  ISO. 

10  Blount  r.  Bestland,  5  Ve.s.  Jr.  515 ;  Cadwell  v.  Hill,  47  N.  H.  407 
410  ;  Buchingham  v.  Carter,  2  Disn.  41, 44. 

11  Dixon,  IS  Ohio,  113,  115, 116  ;  Needles,  7  Ohio  St.  432,  437  ;  Buch- 
ingham V.  Carter,  2  Disn.  41,  45. 

12  Dixon,  18  Ohio,  113, 115  ;  post,  ?  179. 

13  Nicholson  v.  Drury,  Law  R.  7  Ch.  Div.  48,  55  ;  2>ost,  ?  ISO. 

14  Needles,  7  Ohio  St.  4"2,  444  ;   post,  ?  ISl. 

15  Hore  %>.  Becher,  12  Sim.  405,  467 ;  post,  ?  182. 

16  Scarpellinl  v.  Acheson,  7  Q.  B.  864,  876  ;  ;)0«?,  ?  18-3. 

17  Harper  v.  Archer,  2S  Miss.  212,  223. 

?  179.  Reduction  by  taking  possession  of  a  chattel  or 
collecting  a  debt.  —  If  a  husband,  as  husband, ^  gots 
actual  possession  of  a  chattel  of  his  wife's  which  had 
been  held  adversely,^  or  if  debts  due  her  are  paid,^ 
such  cliattel  or  money  are  choses  in  possession  and 
absolutely  his.*  But  collection  of  dividends  is  not  a 
reduction  of  stock.^  Her  receipt,  except  as  his  agent  in 
fact,  is  valueless.^  Receipt  of  part  is  not  reduction  of 
whole.'' 

1  Ante,  ?  178. 

2  McNeill  V.  Arnold,  17  Ark.  151, 171. 

3  Turton,  6Md.  .375,  381 ;  Rees  r.  Keith,  11  Sim.  3.88,390.  See  John- 
son, .33  Ala.  284  ;  Chase  v.  Palmer,  25  Me.  341  ;  Latourette  v.  Wil- 
liams, 1  Barb.  9 ;  Hill  v.  Royce,  17  Vt.  190. 

4  Ante,  §  170. 

5  Hart  V.  Stevens,  6  Q.  B.  937  ;  Burr  !•.  Sherwood,  3  Bradf.  8b. 

6  Thrasher  v.  Tuttle,  22  Me.  3.35 ;  Phillips  !•.  Com.  IS  Pa.  St.  116. 

7  Blount  V.  Bestland,  5  Ves.  516  ;  Harper  v.  Archer,  28  Mise.  212. 


259  REDUCTION   TO   POSSESSION.  gg  180-181 

§  180.  Reduction  by  substitution.  —  A  husband  may 
reduce  his  wife's  choses  in  action  by  substituting  for 
them  other  securities  in  his  own  name.^  Thus,  it  is  a 
reduction  of  liis  wife's  note  when  lie  gets  a  judgment 
on  it  in  his  own  name  ;  ^  so,  it  is  of  her  shares  of  stock 
if  he  transfei's  them  in  his  own  namo.^  Taking  the 
new  security  in  their  joint  names  does  not  deprive  her 
of  her  right  of  survivorship,*  unless  it  appears  that 
such  was  his  intent.^  So  if  he  takes  something  else 
instead  of  payment  of  a  debt,  intending  to  appro^jriate 
it  to  his  own  use.^  So  an  award  to  him  on  a  claim  is  a 
reduction,^  but  not  an  unfinished  compromise.^ 

1  Needles,  7  Ohio  St.  422,  437  ;  Lassiter  v.  Turner,  2  Yerg.  413. 

2  Scarpellini  v.  Acheson,  7  Q.  B.  864,  876 ;  Henderson  v.  Guyot,  6 
Smedes  &  M.  209 ;  Dixon,  IS  Ohio,  lis,  115, 116  ;  post,  \  183. 

3  Winslow  V.  Crocker,  17  Me.  2:),  31  ;  infra,  n.  4. 

4  Nicholson  v.  Driiry,  Law  R.  7  Ch.  D.  4S,  .5.);  Shuttleworth  v. 
Greaves,  2  Jur.  i)57  ;  Blount  v.  Bestland,  5  Ves.  Jr.  515  ;  AVall  v.  Tom- 
linsoii,  16  Ves.  413,  416  ;  SlaymaUer  v.  Bank,  10  Pa.  St.  373 ;  Arnold  v. 
Ruggles,  1  R.  I.  165,  178. 

5  Compare  ante,  l\  127-129. 

6  See  Goodwyn,  Yel.  476;  Howman  v.  Corisr,  2  Vern.  130;  Burn- 
ham  V.  Bennett,  2  Colly.  C.  C.  254;  Howard  v.  Bryant  !)  Gray,  23!), 
240;  Rogers  v.  Bunipass,  4  Ired.  Eq.  3S5  ;  Needles,  7  Ohio  St.  432; 
Stewart,  3  Watts  &  S.  476  ;  Yerby  v.  Lynch,  3  Gratt.  460. 

7  Oglander  v.  Boston,  1  Vern.  396. 

8  Macaulay  v.  Phillips,  4  Ves.  15. 

\  181.  Reduction  by  assignment. — At  common  laAV  a 
chose  in  action  could  not  be  assigned,^  but  in  equity 
such  an  assignment  if  on  valuable  consideration  was 
enforcibie ;  ^  and  now  by  statutes  choses.  in  action  are 
generally  assignable.^  And  a  husband  may  assign  his 
choses  in  action,*  but  unless  there  is  a  valuable  consid- 
eration,^ his  assignment  will  not  be  enforced  if  it  is 
executory  only,^  or  in  equity.'  His  assignment  in 
some  cases  is  reduction,  in  others  it  conveys  to  the  as- 
signee only  his  right  to  reduce. ^  In  general,  an  assign- 
ment of  a  legal  chose  in  action  immediately  reducible 


§  181  EEDUCTION   TO    POSSESSION.  200 

is  a  reduction  by  the  Imsband.^  Thus,  he  reduces  her 
shares  to  possession,  and  cuts  off  all  her  rights,  by  i)lac- 
ing  them  in  another's  name.i"  So  her  negotiable  paper 
is  reduced  by  indorsement. '^  He  can  transfer  her  note 
by  his  sole  indorsement ;  i'^  she  cannot  indorse  at  all," 
except  as  his  agent  in  fact;i*  lier  joinder  with  him  is 
permissible,^^  but  adds  notliing  to  tlie  effect  of  the  as- 
signment.i^  So  he  can  transfer  her  non-negotiable 
paper  in  his  own  name."  He  cannot  thus  transfer  a 
note  to  her  as  administratrix,!^  tliougli  only  slie  or  her 
representatives  and  not  tlie  maker  can  object. '^  But 
■\vlien  a  husband  assigns  his  wife's  unascertained, ^o  con- 
tingent,^i  or  equitable*'^  chose  in  action,  he  does  not 
thereby  reduce  it  to  possession,  but  assigns  his  right  to 
reduce,  and  his  assignee  stands  in  his  shoes,^  being  cut 
out  by  the  dissolution  of  tlie  marriage  before  reduc- 
tion,2*  and  holding  the  chose  in  action  subject  to  the 
wife's  equity.23  And  it  is  the  same  though  the  Avife 
joins  in  the  assignment.^  A  general  assignment  of  a 
husband  in  bankruptcy,"  or  "of  all  his  property,"'^ 
does  not  pass  his  wife's  choses  in  action  ;  ^  but  it  does 
if  these  are  specified.^" 

1  Anson  Coiit.  20G  ;  Stogtlel  v.  Fugate,  2  Marsh.  A.  K.  136. 

2  Anson  Cent.  20S  ;  Mayo  ji.  Carrington,  19  Gratt.  12-1. 

3  See  Broughton  v.  Batigptt,  1  Ga.  75;  Ford  v.  Hale,  1  Mon.  23; 
Lucas  V.  Byrne,  .io  Md.  188  ;  Waterman  v.  Frank,  21  Mo.  108  ;  McPike 
1'.  McPherson,  41  Mo.  .521 ;  Campbell  v.  Mumforr),  I  Hayw.  398;  Mc- 
Cutchen  v.  Keith.  2  Ohio,  262 ;  Bailey  v.  Rawley,  2  Swan,  205. 

4  McCaa  v.  Woolf.  42  Alf..  389,  303  ;  T.owrv  r.  Houston,  4  Miss.  304, 
396  ;  Ahington  v.  Travis,  15  Mo.  240,  244  ;  Brvan  v.  Sprnill.  4  Jones  Eq. 
27,  28  ;  Needles,  7  Ohio  St.  432,  438  ;  Taliaferro,  4  Cull,  93,  96  ;  Ware,  23 
Gratt.  "570,  672. 

5  Webb,  21  Pa.  St.  248,  250. 

6  See  Lonsdale,  29  Pa.  St.  407  ;  Harwood  r.  Fisher,  1  Vounge  <fe  C. 
110. 

7  Kennedy  v.  Ware,  1  Pa.  St.  445 ;  44  Am.  Dec.  14.5. 

8  The  cases  on  this  topic  are  irreconcilable. 

9  AVidgery  v.  Tepper,  Law  R.  7  Ch.  D.  423,  426  ;  Xeedles,  7  Ohio  St. 
432,  441. 

10    Winslow  V.  Croclcer,  17  Me.  29,  31.    Compare  ante,  {  ISO. 


261  KEDUCTIOX  TO  po3St:ssion.  I  183 

11  Scarpellini  v.  Acheson,  7  Q.  B.  8.T4,  876;  Gaters  v.  MacMeloy,  G 
Mees.  &  W.  423 ;  McNeilage  v.  HoUoway,  1  Barn.  &  Alrl.  218 ;  Shor- 
rington  v.  Yates,  12  Mees.  A  \V.  S.jr,,  m-t ;  Droper  i\  Jackson.  10  Mass. 
4S0 ;  Richardson  v.  Daggett,  J  Vt.  'Siii ;  cases  infra. 

12  Mason  v.  Morgan,  2  Ad.  &  E.  .SO,  S2  ;  Trvon  v.  Sutton,  in  Cal.  4n0, 
4i:i ;  Evans  v.  Secrest,  3  I:id.  Mi  ;  Holland  v.  Moortv,  12  Ind.  170  ; 
Page  v.  Estes,  19  Pick.  203,  272;  Henniugway  v.  Matthews,  10  Tex. 
207,  208. 

13  Henningway  v.  Matthews,  10  Tex.  207,  203. 

.  14  Snarpf'llini  v.  AcheSon,  7  Q.  B.  864,  876  ;  Turpin  v.  Thoriipson.  2 
Met.  (Kv.)  420  ;  Savage  v.  tCing,  17  Me.  :«>1 ;  Stevens  v.  Beale,  in  Cush. 
291,  2'.)2,  2;)3  ;  McClaiii  v.  Weidemever,  25  Mo.  364  ;  George  v.  Cutting, 
46  X.  H.  130  ;  Lee  v.  Satterlee,  1  Rob.  (N.  Y.)  1. 

15  Tryon  v.  Sutton,  13  Cal.  400,  403. 

16  Prole  V.  Soadv,  Law  R.  3  Ch.  App.  220,  222  ;  Hord,  5  Mon.  B.  81, 
85  ;  Xorris  v.  Lantz,  18  Md.  260 ;  Scott  v.  Hix,  2  Sneed,  192, 194  ;  post, 
i  181. 

17  Evans  v.  Secrest,  3  Ind.  545. 

18  Ante,  \  167. 

,  19    Roberts  v.  Place,  IS  X.  H.  183,  18.5. 

20  Harper  v.  Archer,  28  Miss.  212,  21'J. 

21  Matheney  v.  Guess,  2  Hill  Ch.  03,  06. 

22  Bold  V.  Geiger,  2  Gratt.  98, 110. 

23  Tidd  V.  Lister,  3  DeGex  M.  &  G.  857,  8frl ;  Mlckelmore  v.  Mudge, 
2  Gi£f.  18.3,  184;  Ashby,  1  Coll  v.  C.  C.  519,  .5.>1 ;  .Scott  v.  Spashett,  3 
Macn.  &  G.  .599,  603,  604 ;  Prole  )'.  Soady,  Law  R.  3  Ch.  App.  220,  222  ; 
Box,  6  Irish  Eq.  174, 195  ;  Rogers  v.  Acastar,  14  Beav.  44.5,  4.50  ;  (Jeorgo 
V.  Goldsbv,  23  Ala.  320  ;  State  v.  Robertson,  5  Har.  (Del.)  201  ;  Smith  v. 
Alwood,  14  Ga.  402,  413  ;  Lvnn  v.  Bradey,  i  Met.  flvv.)  232,  235  ;  Piige  r. 
Estes,  19  Pick.  26),  271  ;  Van  Epps  v.  Van  Deusen,  4  Paige,  64,  73; 
25  Am.  Dee.  516  ;  O'Connor  v.  Harris,  81  X.  C.  279, 2.82  ;  Xeedles,  7  Ohio 
St.  4;e,  438,  439  ;  Duke  v.  Palmer,  10  Rich.  Eq.  380;  Bugg  v.  Franklin, 
4  Sneed,  120;  Rice  t;.  McReynolds,  8  r,ea,  36,  3');  Browning  v.  Head- 
lev,  2  Rob.  (Va.)  340,  368  ;  40  Am.  Dec.  7.5.5.  That  he  can  dispose  abso- 
lutelv  of  such,  see  Tuttle  v.  Fowler,  22  Conn.  58,  64,  66  ;  Smilie,  22  Pa. 
St.  130,  1.33  ;  Webb,  21  Pa.  St.  248,  250. 

24  Lvnn  v.  Bradlev,  1  Met.  fKv.)  232,  235  ;  Outcalt  v.  Van  Winkle,  2 
N.  J.  Eq.  513,  516  ;  Van  Epps  v.  Van  Deusen,  4  Paige,  64,  73  ;  25  Am. 
Dec.  516  ;  Bryan  v.  Spruill,  4  Jones  Eq.  27,  28  ;  Xeedles,  7  Ohio  St.  432, 
440. 

25  Moore,  14  Mon.  B.  2.59,  261  ;  Kennv  v.  Udall,  5  Johns.  Ch.  464,  473 ; 
Dold  V.  Geiger,  2  Gratt.  9S,  110. 

26  Cases  supra,  n.  16. 

27  Sherrington  v.  Yates,  12  Mees.  &  W.  8.55,  S64  ;  Williams  v.  .Swan, 
75  Va.  137,  144  ;  infra,  n.  29. 

28  Skinner,  5  Pa.  St.  262,  26.3. 

29  See  also  Mitford.  9  Ves.  87 ;  Poor  v.  Hazleton,  15  X.  H.  501,  .565. 

30  Outcalt  V.  Van  Winkle,  2  X.  J.  Eq.  513,  616 ;  Van  Epps  v.  Van 
Deusen,  4  Paige,  04,  73,  74  ;  25  Am.  Dec.  516. 

\  182.  Reduction  by  release.  —  A  hu.sband  may  release 
his  wife's  clioses  in  acl.ion,  and  tlius  desU-oy  all  her 


I  183  REDUCTIOX   TO   POSSESSION.  262 

rights ;  ^  but  he  cannot  release  Avhen  there  is  no  right 
of  action. 2  Thus  he  can  release  a  legacy  to  her,^  but 
not  a  promise  to  her  to  pay  her  money  after  his  death;* 
whether  he  can  release  an  annuity  to  her  is  doubtful.^ 
A  release  is  strictly  an  instrument  under  seal.^  A  parol 
release  must  have  a  valuable  consideration.' 

1  Hore  V.  Becher,  12  Sim.  4fi5,  467  ;  Jacks  v.  Adair,  31  Ark.  610,  623  ; 
Fitch  V.  A.ver,  2  Conn.  14:i ;  Griswolfl  v.  Penniman,  2  Conn  "S4  ;  Mau- 
ion  V.  Titsvvorth,  18  Mon.  B.  582,  602  ;  Thomas  v.  Kelsoe,  7  Men.  521 ; 
Chase  v.  Palmer,  25  Me.  341 ;  Weems,  19  Md.  334,  :il4  ;  Thomas  v. 
Wood,  1  Md.  Ch.  296  ;  Com.  v.  Manlev.  12  Pick.  173  ;  Foster  v.  Fifield, 
20  Pick.  67  ;  Duncan  v.  Prentice,  4  Met.  216  ;  McGee  v.  Ford,  13  Miss. 
769  ;  Morton  v.  Massie,  3  Mo.  482  ;  Tucker  v.  Gordon,  6  N.  H.  .564  ; 
John.son  v.  Bennett,  39  Barb.  2.37;  Hearne  v.  Keran,  2  Ired.  Eq.  39; 
Barnes  v.  Pearson,  6  Ired.  Eq.  482  ;  Lassiter  v.  Dawson,  2  Dev.  Eq. 
383  ;  Needles,  7  Ohio  St.  432,  442  ;  Brinton,  10  Pa.  St,  408  ;  Krause  v. 
Beitel,  3  Eawle,  199 ;  23  Am.  Dec.  113. 

2  Rogers  v.  Acastar,  14  Beav.  445,  450 ;  Needles,  7  Ohio  St.  432, 
442. 

3  Jacks  V.  Adair,  31  Ark.  616,  623  ;  Weems,  19  Md.  3.34,  344. 

4  Rogers  i\  Acastar,  14  Beav.  445,  450. 

5  Pro.  Hore  v.  Becher,  12  Sim.  465,  467.  Contra,  Thompson  v. 
Butler,  Sir  F.  Moore,  522. 

6  See  Palmer  v.  Green,  6  Conn.  14 ;  Learned  v.  Bellows,  8  Vt.  79. 

7  Webb,  21  Pa.  St.  248,  250. 

§  183.  Eeduction  by  suit.  —  Whenever  a  suit  is  neces- 
sary to  get  possession  of  property,  such  propertj^  is  a 
chose  in  action,'  Avhich  is  reduced  to  possession  by  the 
husband  only  if  he  gets  actual  possession  of  it.^  As 
where  he  replevied  her  chattel,^  or  gets  a  judgment  for 
it  in  his  owti  name.*  Obtaining  judgment  in  his  own 
name  is  reduction  by  substitution,'  but  there  is  no  re- 
duction if  such  judgment  were  gotten  by  him  for  her 
as  her  agent  or  trustee.^  Nor  is  a  judgment  in  their 
joint  names  a  reduction  to  possession."  In  Avhat  cases 
he  must  sue  alone,  and  in  what  cases  he  may  or  must 
join  her,  is  discussed  under  "Hawes  on  Parties."* 

1  Hall  V.  McLain,  11  Humph.  425,  428. 

2  Ante,  ?  179. 

3  McNeil  v.  Arnold,  17  Ark.  154, 171. 


203  REDUCTION  TO  POSSESSION.  g  183 

4  Scarpellin!  v.  Acheson,?  Q.  B.  8ft4,  878  ;  Heygate  v.  Annesley^  3 
Bro.  C.  C.  :»J ;  Mason  v.  McNeill.  23  Ala.  201,  208  ;  Fischer  v.  Hess,  9 
Moil.  B.  6M.  ()17  ;  Henderson  ik  Ouvot,  6  Smedes  «fe  M.  209  ;  Dixon,  IS 
fihio,  113,  11.1,  116  ;  Needles,  7  Ohio,  432, 437;  Boozer i'.  Addison. 2  Rich. 
Eq.  273 ;  46  Am.  Dec.  43. 

5  Ante,  I  180. 

6  Plerson  v.  Smith,  9  Ohio  St.  654,  557. 

7  Mason  t'.  McNeill,  23  Ala.  201,  2ns  :  Pike  v.  Collins,  33  Me.  3fi,  43  ; 
Buckingham  v.  Carter,  2  Disn.  41,44  ;  Perry  u.  Wheelock,  4J  Vt.  6;i,  67. 

8  Hawes  Parties,  j^  (ia-70. 


I  184  wife's  estate.  264 

CHAPTER  XI. 

wife's  estate  in  her  own  property. 

ART.  T.     Generally,  g?  184,  185. 

II.    Wife's  Paraphernalia    and    Pin-Money, 
??  186-189. 
III.    Wife's  Equity  to  a  Settlement,  gg  190-196. 

Article  I.  —  Generally. 

i  184.    Wife's  general  property. 

5  ISh.    Wife's  separate  property. 

?  184.  Wifo's  general  property.  —  By  the  common  law 
the  individuality  of  the  wife  is  merged  in  that  of  her 
husband,!  she  had  no  separate  legal  existence,^  and 
dTiring  coverture  could  not  hold  property  or  exercise 
property  rights.^  Through  marriage  by  operation  of 
law  all  her  personalty  in  possession  passed  absolutely 
to  her  husband, ^  he  acquired  a  right  to  reduce  her 
choses  in  action  to  possession,  and  thus  make  tliem  his 
own,^  of  her  chattels  real  he  became  practically  abso- 
lute owner,^  and  he  was  entitled  to  all  the  rents  and 
profits  of  her  real  estate.'  She  could  not  acquire  prop- 
erty without  his  consent.^  And  in  any  acquisitions  of 
hers  he  had  the  same  rights  as  he  had  in  her  property 
OA\Tied  by  her  at  the  time  of  her  marriage.^  But  from 
the  earliest  times  courts  of  equity  encroached  on  this 
simiile  and  savage  system,'"  and  statutes  have  now 
more  or  less  abolished  it  in  every  State  where  the  com- 
mon law  has  been  in  force.^^ 

1  Barron,  2-1  Vt.  375,  398  ;  ante,  ?  38. 

2  O'Ferrall  v.  Simplot,  4  Iowa,  381,  389. 

3  As  to  Markikd  Women's  Capacity,  see  post,  Part  iv.  ??33l, 
ei  seq. 

4  Cram  V.  Dudley,  2S  N.  H.  537,  541  ;  ante,  1 170. 

5  Cox  V.  Scott,  'J  Eaxt.  305,  310  ;  ante,  I  176, 


263  wife's  parapueenalia.         g§  185-186 

6  Allen  V.  Hooper,  50  Me.  371,  374  ;  ante,  ?  »3. 

7  Lucas  I'.  Eickerick,  1  Lea,  7-6,  723  ;  ante,  I  147. 

8  Patterson  v.  Robinson,  25  Pa.  St.  81,  82  ;  post,  ?  223. 

9  See  Campbell  v.  Galbreath,  12  Bush,  4.59,  404  ;  supra,  notes,  4,  7. 

10  2  &torj'  Eq.  Jur.  ?  1378  ;  1  Fonb.  B.  C.  1,  ch.  2,  §  6,  n,  ;  post,  I  197. 

11  For  summary,  see  6  South.  Law  Rev.  p.  633 ;  post,  I  217. 

§  185.  Wife's  separate  property.  —  Besides  her  para- 
phernalia, pin-money,  and  equity  to  a  settlement  dis- 
cussed in  this  chapter,  a  wife  may  have  separate 
projiorty  created  by  settlement  or  b.y  statute,  discussed 
in  chapters  xii.  and  xiii. 

Article  II.  —  Paraphernalia  and  Pin-Money. 

J  186.  Paraphernalia  defined. 

§  187.  Incidents  of  pai-aphernalia. 

{  188.  Pin-money  defined. 

{  189.  Incidents  of  pin-money. 

?  i85.  Paraphernalia  defined.  —  By  the  common  law  a 
wife's  paraphernalia  were  such  articles  of  wearing 
apparel,^  including  jewels  and  ornaments,^  as  well  as 
nocossury  clothing,^  consistent  with  her  condi;:iou  and 
degree,^  which  her  husband  allowed  her  to  wear.* 
Thus,  a  watch  bought  by  her  husband  for  her  was  a 
part  of  her  parapliernalia,^  but  not  if  such  watch  were 
out  of  keeping  with  their  station  in  llfc.^  So  the  jewels, 
worth  tliree  thousand  pounds,  of  a  peeress,  were  so 
held.^  But  paraphernalia  included  only  articles  v/hich 
she  wore,*  plate  for  family  use,'"  or  ornaments  for  the 
parlor,"  though  given  to  her  wore  not  paraphernalia. 
Her  parai)hernalia  did  not  include,  and  must  be  dis- 
tinguished from  her  sole  and  separate  property  secured 
to  her  by  equity,i^  or  by  statute.^^  So  they  must  be 
distinguished  from  paraphernal  property  under  the 
civil  law  ;i*  the  latter  is  tlie  wife's  extra-dotal  separate 
l^roperty,  which  she  can  manage  alone  f living  cover- 
n.&yv  -23. 


1  187  wife's    PAKAPHKRNALIA.  206 

ture  I  '^  the  former  belong  to  the  husband  during  his 
life,  but  pass  to  her  on  his  death, "^  in  addition  to  her 
dower,''  and  tliirds.^^  Jewels,  etc.,  wliicli  are  heir- 
looms are  not  ijaraphernalia,  tiiougli  given  to  tiie  wiio 
to  Avear.'" 

1  feeymore  i:  Tresilian,3  Atk.  358,359  ;  Hawkins  ?>.  Provideiicr, 
no  Jlass.  6!i6,  590  ;  20  Am.  liep.  353  ;  McUormick  v.  Pennsvlvania,  -,.) 
N.  Y.  303,  317. 

2  Howard  v.  i\renifee,  5  Ark.  668,670;  Tllexan  v.  "Wilson, -lii  Mo. 

185,  190  ;  McCormick  v.  Pt-nnsylvania,  41)  N.  Y.  303,  317. 

3  1  RoUe,  nil,  L.  35  ;  2  Blackst.  Com.  436 ;  Townshenil  r.  WnnX- 
ham,  2  Ves.  1,  7. 

4  Vass  V.  Southall,  4  Ired,  301,  303. 

0  See  2  Blackst.  Com.  4:55,  436  ;  W'illson  v.  Pack,  Prpc.  Ch.  295,  297  ; 
Nortbey,  2  Atk.  77,  79  ;  Kidout  v.  Plymouth,  2  Atk.  KM,  105  :  Marshall 
V.  Blew,  2  Atk.  217;  Snelson  v.  Corbet,  3  Atk.  358,  :<59 ;  Uraliani  r. 
Londonderry,  3  Atk.  393,  3m  ;  Grant,  2  8torv,  312,  319  ;  Puryear,  12 
Ala.  13,  15  ;  Howard  v.  Menifee,  5  Ark.  668,  670  ;  fctate  lu  Hav.s,21  Ind. 
28^,  289  ;  Tlle.tan  !'.  Wilson,  43  Me.  186,  190  ;  Carroll  c.  Lee,  3  (iill  A-  J. 
504,  5(9  ;  Hawkins  v.  Providence,  119  Mass.  590,  599  ;  20  Am.  Rep.  3.53  ; 
Gully  V.  Hull,  31  Miss.  20;  Harrall,  31  N.  J.  Kq.  101,  102;  Rawson  v. 
Pennsylvania,  48  N.  Y.  212,  2lfl  ;  8  Am.  Rep.  543  ;  McCormick  v. 
Pennsylvania,  49  N.  Y.  303,  317  ;  Vass  v.  Southall,  4  Ired.  295,  297. 

6  Howard  v.  Menifee,  5  Ark,  668,  671 ;  Tllexan  v.  Wilson,  43  Me. 

186,  190. 

7  Vass  V.  Southall,  4  Ired.  295,  297. 

8  Northey.  2  Atk.  77,  79. 

9  .Seymore  v.  Tresilian,  3  Atk.  3.58.  3.59. 

10  Carroll  v.  Lee,  3  Gill  &  J.  504,  509. 

11  Graham  ^i.  Londonderry,  3  Atk.  39.3,  .W."-..  ..,, 

12  Graham  v.  Londonderrv,  3  Atk.  393,  394  ;  Gnllv  v.  Hull.  31  Mas.s. 
20  ;  1  Bish.  M.  W.  5  220 ;  post,  U  197-210. 

13  Rawson  v.  Peni;sylvania,  48  N.  V.  212,  216  ;  8  Am.  Uep.  .^>4:!. 

14  See  La.  Civ.  Code,  1875,  ?|  2315, 2317-2332,  2360-2369. 

15  Cambre  t>.  Grobent,  33  La.  An.  240,  217,  248  ;  Guilbeau  v.  Cornier, 

2  La.  6,  8. 

16  Howard  v.  Menifee,  5  Ark.  668,  671  ;  post,  5  187. 

17  Discussed  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ??  460,  461  ;  post,  ??  244-300. 

18  Discussed  .Stewart  M.  &  D.  H  460,  462  ;  post,  ?  301. 

19  Calmadv,  11  Vin.  Abr.  181, 182;  Jervoice,  17  Beav.  ,566,  570,  571  ; 
Berry,  0  Irish  Ch.  497. 

g  187.  Incidents  of  paraphernalia. — Although  a  hus- 
band is  bound  to  supplj^  his  wife  with  necessarj'  food, 
shelter,  and  clothing,'  and  would  not  be  allowed  "  to 
leave  her  naked  and  exposed  to  shame  and  c-old,"  ■  the 


267  wifk's  paraphernalia.  I  187 

very  gown  on  her  back  is  his;^  all  personalty  in  her 
possession  is  absolutely  his.*  So  he  can  dispose  of  her 
paraphernalia  during  his  life;^  if  any  of  them  are 
stolen  the  indictment  must  charge  a  larceny  of  his 
goods,^  if  injured  or  taken  away  the  suit  must  be  in  Ms 
name.^  But  in  this  paraphernalia  differ  from  ol;her 
personalty :  if  he  dies  witliout  having  disposed  of  them 
they  are  his  wife's  absolutely  against  every  one  except 
creditors;*  he  cannot  will  them;^  if  he  has  jsledged 
them  she  can  make  his  estate  redeem  them ; '"  they 
may,  it  is  true,  be  taken  by  his  creditors,^*  except  arti- 
cles of  necessary  wearing  apparel  i-  —  which  include 
something  moi"e  than  one  gown^^  —  and  such  articles, 
perhaps,  as  her  wedding  ring,"  etc.,  but  if  taken  she 
may  compel  his  estate  to  reimburse  her.'^  Parapher- 
nalia are  therefore  property  of  a  widow  rather  than  of 
a  wife,  and  are  now  generally  secured  to  the  widow  by 
statute. ^'^  In  one  case  a  statute  validating  gifts  from 
husband  to  wife  was  held  to  render  the  wife's  para- 
2>herna]ia  sole  and  separate  property. ^' 

1  Ante,  I  04  ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  \\  179,  ISO. 

2  1  Bolle,  911,  L.  35. 

3  Carre  v.  Brice,  7  Meea.  &  \V.  183,  184 ;  Regina  v.  Tollett,  Car.  & 
M.  112,  118, 119. 

4  Cox  V.  Scott,  9  Baxt.  305,  310  ;  ante,  U  10",  170. 

5  Seymore  v.  Tresilian,  3  Atk.  35'l,  359  ;  Howard  v.  Menifee,  5  Ark. 
668,  671 ;  Tlle.xau  v.  Wilson,  43  Me.  186, 190;  Kawson  v.  Pennsylvania, 
48  N.  Y.  212,  215  ;  8  Am.  Rep.  M3. 

6  State  V.  Hays,  21  Ind.  288,  289. 

7  Hawkins  ?'.  Providence,  119  Mass.  596,  599;  20  Am.  Rep.  353; 
Bawson  n.  Pennsylvania,  48  N.  Y.  212,215;  8Am.  Rep.  543;  McCor- 
mlck  V.  Pennsylvania,  4:t  N.  Y.  303,  317. 

8  Rawson  v.  Pennsylvania.  48  N.  Y.  212,  215 ;  8  Am.  Rep.  543  ; 
infra,  n.  !).    See  Hewson,  23  Eng.  L.  &  Eq.  283. 

9  Northey,  2  Atk.  77,  79  ;  Marshall  v.  Blew,  2  Atk.  217  ;  Howarl  )•. 
Menifee,  5  Ark.  668,  671  ;  Rawson  v.  Pennsylvania,  48  N.  Y.  212,  2:5 ;  8 
Am.  Rep.  .543. 

10  Gniham  v.  Londonderry,  3  Atk.  393,  395 ;  Harrall,  31  X.  J.  I.q. 
101,  102,  103. 

11  Willson  V.  Pack,  Pree.  Ch.  296,  297 ;  Ridout  ?■.  Plymouth,  2  Atk. 
104,  105 ;  Grant,  2  Story.  312,  319  ;  Howard  v.  Menifee,  5  Ark.  668,  071  ; 
TlJexan  v.  Wilson,  43  Me.  186, 190. 


II  188-189  wife's  paraphernalia.  268 

12  2  Blackst.  Com.  4C5,  406. 

13  Townshend  v.  Windham,  2  Ves.  1,  7. 

14  I  Bish.  M.  &  W.  >i  218. 

15  Snelson  v.  Corbet,  3  Atk.  35S.  3.53  ;  Howard  v.  Menifee,  5  Ark.  6G8, 
671. 

16  See  "  Widow's  Allowance,"  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ?  459. 

17  Eawson  v.  Pennsylvania,  48  N.  Y.  212, 216  ;  8  Am.  Rep.  543. 

^  188.  Pin-money  defined.  —  It  is  said  that  the  books 
contain  no  definition  of  i>in-money.'  It  is  sinaplj^  a 
husband's  allowance  to  his  wife  for  her  dress  and  per- 
sonal expenses.^  Sometimes  it  is  created  by  a  sottle- 
ment,3  and  is  definite  in  amount.^  and  specific  in 
purpose;'^  sometimes  it  takes  the  form  of  a  gift  to  the 
wife  of  her  .savings  out  of  the  household  expenses,*  or 
the  profits  of  a  dairy  or  hennery.''  It  has  been  recog- 
nized in  Marj-land,*  but  rejected  in  Xorth  Carolina.^ 

1  Howard  v.  Digby,  8  Bligh  N.  R.  224,  253,  2f.O  ;  2  Clark  &  F.  G:54,  654. 

2  Compare  1  Bish.  M.  W.  J  230.  See  Jodrell,  9  Beav.  45  ;  2  Story 
Eq.  Juris,  i  1375 ;  Macq.  H.  &  W.  318  ;  Peachey  Mar.  Sett.  298. 

3  Board,  3  Atk.  72 ;  Bell  H.  &  W.  466. 

4  Howard  v.  Digby,  8  Bligh  N.  R.  224,  269  ;  2  Clark  &  F.  634,  654. 

5  Powell  V.  Hankey,  2  P.  Wms.  84. 

6  Slaiining  ".  Style,  3  P.  Wms.  3.37  ;  Stamway  v.  Stiles,  2  Eq.  Cas- 
Abr.  1.56;  (,'almadv,  11  Viii.  Abr.  181  ;  Mangey  v.  Huugerford,  2  Eq- 
Cas.  Abr.  156.    Bui  see  Tyrell,  2  Freem.  304. 

7  Shinning  v.  Style,  3  P.  Wms.  337. 

8  Miller  v.  Williamson,  5  Md.  219. 

9  MclCinnon  r.  McDonald,  4  Jones  Eq.  1,  6. 

g  189.  Incidents  of  pin-money.  —  Pin-money  is  the 
v.'ife's  .sole  and  separate  jiropertj',  and  she  has  all  the 
incidents  thereof,^  .save  that  more  than  one  year's  ar- 
rears cannot  be  collected.^  It  is  generally  secured  to  a 
married  woman  by  a  settlement,^  which  if  made  after 
marriage  must  not  prejudice  the  rights  of  her  hus- 
band's creditors.*  It  is  enforced  in  equity.^  She  may 
contract  with  respect  thereto  as  with  respect  to  her 
other  equitable  separate  estate.*  Accumulations  thereof 
are  hers  to  dispose  of  by  will.^    She  does  not  forfeit  it 


269  wief's  equity.  g  190 

by  elopement,^  though  she  may  waive  it  (arrears)  by 
accepting  from  her  husband  apparel,  etc.,^  or  a  legacy,'" 
in  its  stead.  After  his  death  she  can  claim  only  one 
year's  arrears, i'  and  if  siie  dies  her  representatives  can- 
not claim  any  arrears  ;  '^  she  can  claim  all  arrears,  how- 
ever, if  slie  has  demanded  payment,'^  or  has  been 
living  apai't  from  her  husband." 

1  See  Howard  v.  Digby,  2  Clark  &  F.  6.>1 ;  8  Bligli  X.  R.  22-1,  269. 

2  Howard  v.  Bigby,  8  Bligh  N.  R.  224,  2-16. 

3  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ^?  32-13  ;  ante,  U  99,  et  seq. 

4  Beard,  3  Atk.  72  ;  Bell  H.  &  W.  46G ;  ante,  U  113,  118. 

5  2  Story  Eq.  Jur.  J  1375  a,  note  ;  Slanning  v.  Style,  3  P.  Wms.  337, 
338. 

6  Howard  v.  Digby,  supra,  n.  1. 

7  Sugden  Law  of  Prop.  p.  163 ;  Neal,  Prec.  Ch.  44.  Contra,  Bar- 
rack V.  McCuUoch,  3  Kay  &  J.  114. 

8  Blount  V.  Winter,  3  P.  Wms.  276,  n.  ;  Field  v.  Serres,  1  N.  R.  121 ; 
Moore,  1  Atk.  272  ;  Sidney,  3  P.  Wms.  2SU ;  Lee,  Dick.  321 ;  More  v. 
Scarborough,  2  Eq.  Cas.  Abr.  156. 

9  Powell  V.  Hankev,  2  P.  Wms.  84  ;  Thomas  ;•.  Bennet,  2  P.  Wms. 
341 ;  Fowler,  3  P.  Wms.  355. 

10  Arthur,  11  Ired.  Eq.  511  ;  Fowler,  3  P.  Wms.  3.55. 

11  Howard  v.  Digby,  8  Bligh  N.  R.  224,  246  ;  2  Clark  &  F.  634  ; 
Aston,  1  Ves.  Sr.  267  ;  Towiishend  )'.  Windham,  2  Vos.  7  ;  Peacock 
IK  Monk,  2  Ves.  Sr.  2iK) ;  0!Hev,  Prec.  Ch.  2G  ;  Warwick  v.  Edwards,  1 
Eq.  Abr.  140  ;  Poachey  Mar.  Sett.  303. 

12  Howard  v.  Digby,  8  Bligh  N.  R.  224,  271. 

13  Ridout  V.  Lewis,  1  Atk.  269  ;  Aston,  1  Ves.  Sr.  2G7. 

14  Aston,  1  Ves.  Sr.  267. 


Article  III. — Wife's  Equity  to  a  Settlement. 

\  190.  Definition. 

\  191.  B.v  what  court  enforced. 

\  192.  On  whose  application  enforced. 

\  193.  Out  of  what  property  enforced. 

I  194.  Under  what  circumstances  enforced. 

?  195.  On  whom  the  .settlement  is  made. 

§196.  Amount  of  the  settlement. 

\  190.  Wife's  equity  defined.  —  A  wife's  equity  to  a 
settlement  is  her  riglit  enforcible  in  equity  to  have  a 
«ettlemeiit  fox  th6  benefit  of  licrscif  and  her  children 


§  190  wife's  equity.  270 

out  of  her  equitable  choses  in  action.^  This  settlement 
may  be  made  (1)  by  a  court  of  equity  ;2  (2)  sua  sponte, 
or  on  application  of  a  trustee,  or  of  the  husband,  or  of 
the  wife  ;  ^  (3)  out  of  any  fund  over  which  it  has  juris- 
diction ;  *  (4)  wlienever  tlie  wife  needs  it,  and  against 
her  husband's  creditors  and  assignees,  unless  slie  lias 
waived  it ;  ^  (5)  on  the  wife  alone  or  on  her  and  lier 
children; 6  (6)  the  amount  depending  on  the  special 
circumstances  of  each  particular  case.'  It  originated 
in  tlie  chancery  courts  of  England,^  growing  out  of  tlie 
maxim  that  'he  who  seeks  equity  must  do  eqviity," 
and  being  at  first  recognized  only  when  the  husband 
or  his  assignee  went  into  equity  to  collect  a  chose  in 
action  of  tlie  Avife's.^"  It  has  been  enforced  in  most  of 
the  United  States,"  but  not  in  all ;  ^^  and  has  been 
superseded  by  married  women's  sepai'ate  property  acts 
which  have  nearly  universally  destroyed  the  hus- 
band's rights  in  his  wife's  clioses  in  action. '^  It  is  a 
valuable  right  and  valuable  consideration  for  a  settle- 
ment by  a  husband,"  and  paramount  to  the  right  of 
the  husband's  creditoi's^*  or  assigns.^^ 

1  See  Tewson  r.  Moulson,  2  Atk.  417,  41!) ;  Sturgis  v.  Champnovs, 
5Mvln(>  it  ('.  !!-,  1111,  in.".;  Wilts,  s  Md.  1,  0  ;  ^  Am.  Dec.  7:i:t ;  Durr  v. 
Boyer,  2  :S[(('nMl,  .ic^,  :.7--'  •  1  White  it  T.  Lead.  Cas.  424,  SfiO.  It  is  liunl 
to  fletinc  :(s  it  (l'i>ciHls  vry  imi''li  on  the  priictice  of  the  courts: 
Kenny  (•.  UdiUl,  .">  John.s.  Ch.'4G-;,  474  ;  2  Perry  Trusts,  J  027. 

2  Sturgis  V.  Champneys,  .5  Mylne  &  C.  92, 103  ;  post,  'i  101. 

3  Elihank  v.  Moiitolieu,  .'5  Ves.  7"7,  74S ;  1  White  .ft  T.  Lead.  Cas, 
424,  62.3,  628  ;  post,  i  l'J2. 

4  Sturgis  V.  Champnevs,  .5  Mylne  <fc  C.  92,  103 ;  Wiles,  o  Jld.  1,  •) ; 
56  Am.  Dec.  733  ;  post,  'i  1U3. 

5  Post,  §  194. 

6  Murray  v.  Elibank,  13  Ves.  1,  6  ;  post,  §  19.5. 

7  Kenny  v.  Udall,  5  .Tohns.  Ch.  4(M,  478,  471)  ;  post,  ?  196. 

8  Murray  v.  Elibank,  13  Ves.  1 ;  1  White  &  T.  Lead.  Cas.  .360. 

9  Sturgis  V.  Champneys,  .5  Mylne  &  C.  92,  105  ;  Duvall  v.  Farmers, 
4  Gill  &  J.  282,  291 ;  23  Am.  Dec.  5.t8. 

10  2  Story  Eq.  Jur.  U  WOH,  1414  ;  1  White  &  T.  Lead.  Cas.  333. 

11  Andrews  ?'.  Jones,  10  Ala.  401,  423  ;  Carleton  .'.  Banks,  7  Ala.  .34  ; 
Bradford  r.  Goldsboro,  1.5  Ala.  311;  Guild,  16  Ala.  122;  Aberiiethv,  8 
FKi.  243  ;  Bell,  1  Kelly,  6.37,  639,  640  ;  Napier  v,  Howard,  3  Kelly,  193, 


271  wife's  equity.  §  191 

204 ;  Veldell  v.  Quarles,  Dud.  Eq.  55,  50 ;  Corley,  22  Ga.  178  ;  Pool  v. 
Morris,  2!)  Ga.  374  ;  Bennett  v.  Dillingham,  2  Dana,  436,  437  ;  Thomas 
V.  Kennedy,  4  Men.  B.  235,  2:?7;  Havs  v  Blanks,  7  Mon  B.  347,  Crook 
V.  Turpln,  10  Mon.  B.  243;  Moore,  14  Mon.  B.  259;  Wright  v.  Arnold, 
14  Mon.  B.  642  ;  Chase  v.  Palmer,  29  Me.  342,  34S  ;  Tucker  v.  Andrews, 
13  Me.  124,  128:  Thrasher  v.  Tuttle,  22  Me.  335;  Wiles,  3  Md.  1,9; 
56  Am.  Dec.  733  ;  Taggart  ;>.  Thayer  10  Md.  99  ;  Norris  v  Lantz,  18 
Md.  260;  Kuhn  v.  Stansfield,  28  Md.  210;  Oswald  v  Hoover,  43  Md, 
367  ;  McVey  v.  Praggs,  3  Md.  Ch.  94  ;  Jf)nes,  1  Bland,  459  ;  18  Am.  Dec. 
3-27  ;  Helms  v.  Franciscus,  2  Bland,  .544,  676  ;  20  Am.  Dec.  402  •  Duvall 
•i'.  Farmers,  4  Gill  &  J.  2S2,  291 ;  23  Am.  Dec.  55S  ;  Barrett  v.  Oliver, 
7  Gill  &  J.  191 ;  Groveniian  v.  Diffcnderfer,  11  Gill  &  J.  15,  22  ;  Mann 
V.  Higgins,  7  Gill,  266 ;  State  v.  Reigart,  1  Gill,  1  ;  39  Am.  Dec.  628  ; 
State  V.  Krehs,  6  Har.  &  J.  31 ;  P.age  v.  Estes,  19  Pick.  269, 271 ;  Sawyer 
V.  Baldwin,  20  Pick.  378;  Gassett  v.  Grout,  4  Met.  4S6,  489;  Davis  r. 
Newton,  6  Met.  537,  543  ;  Carter,  14  Smedes  &  M.  59 ;  Stevenson  v. 
Brown,  4  N.  J.  Eq.  503;  Kenny  v.  ITdall,  5  Johns.  Ch.  464,  473-476  ;  3 
Cowen,  591,  .599-609;  Schuyler  v  Hovle,  5  Johns.  Ch.  196;  Glen  v. 
Fisher,  6  Johns.  Ch.  33  ;  10  .\m.  Dec.  310  ;  Van  Epps  v.  Van  Deusen,  4 
Paige,  64;  25  Am.  Dec.  616;  Smith  v.  Kane,  2  Paige,  303;  Rees  v. 
Waters,  9  Watts,  90,  !H ;  Gray,  1  Pa.  St.  329;  Goochenanr,  23  Pa.  St. 
460  ;  Durr  v.  Bowver,  2  MeCord  Ch.  368,  .372;  Myers,  1  Bail.  Eq.  24,  31 ; 
Hill,  1  Strob.  Eq.  2  24;  Wilkes  v.  I-ltzpatrick,  1  Humph.  54,  58; 
Phillips  V.  Hassell,  10  Humph.  197  ;  Browning  r.  Headley,  2  Rob. 
(Va.)  342,  371  ;  40  Am.  Dec.  755;  Poindoxter  v.  Jeflfries,  15  Gratt.  363; 
Short  V.  Moore,  10  Vt.  446,  451 ;  Barron,  24  Vt.  375, 391-395. 

12  Bryan,  1  Dev.  Eq.  47  ;  Lassiter  v.  Dawson,  2  Dev.  Eq.  283. 

13  Ante,  i  165  ;  2  Perry  Trusts,  ?  645,  note. 

14  Wheeler  v.  Carj-1,  Amb.  121,  122  ;  ante,  ?  105. 

15  Havs  V.  Blanks,  7  Mon.  B.  347,  34S  ;  Barron,  24  Vt.  375,  39.5. 
Superior  to  right  of  set-off:  Carr  v.  Taylor,  10  Ves.  574  ;  O'Ferrall,  1 
Gill  &  J.  347. 

16  Macaulay  v.  Phillips,  4  Ves.  19  ;  1  White  &  T.  Lead.  Cas.  447, 
640  ;  Keiinv  v.  Udall,  5  Johns.  Ch.  464,  47:1,  477.  See  also  Jewson  v. 
Moulson  2  Atk.  417,  420  ;  Burdon  v.  Dean,  2  Ves.  Jr.  607  ;  Pryor  v. 
Hill,  4  Bro.  Ch.  138  ;  Sturgis  v.  Champnevs,  5  Mvlne  &  C.  97  ;  Andrew 
1'.  Jones,  10  Ala.  401  ;  Bell,  1  Kelly,  637 ;  Moore.  14  Mon.  B.  2.59  ;  Crook 
V.  Turpin,  10  Mon.  B.  244  ;  Norris  v.  Dantz,  18  Md.  260  ;  Duvall  r.  Far- 
mers, 4  Gill  &  J.  283 ;  23  Am.  Dec.  558  ;  Gassett  v.  Grout,  4  Met.  480  ; 
Davis  V.  Newton,  6  Met.  537 ;  Page  v.  Estes,  19  Pick.  269  ;  Durr  v 
Bowver.  2  McCord  Ch.  368  ;  Heath,  2  Hill  Ch.  100 ;  Sherrard  v.  Carlisle, 
1  Pat'.  ,fe  H.  12  ;  Browning  v.  Headley,  2  Rob.  (Va.)  342;  40  Am.  Dec.  755. 

2  191.    By  what  courts  wife's  equity  is  enforced.  —  The 

wife's  right  to  a  settlement  out  of  her  chases  in  action 
originated  in  the  chancery  court.s  of  England, i  and  is 
enforced  only  by  courts  of  equity  where  such  courts 
exist,2  When  there  is  no  separate  court  of  equity,  as  in 
Penn.sylvania,  it  is  enforced  by  courts  of  law.^ 

1  Ante,  ?  190. 

2  Sturgis  V.  Champnevs,  5  Mylne  <fe  C.  92,  103;  Blagden,  2  Rose, 
251 ;  Oswell  v.  Probert,  2  Ves.  Jr.  680  ;  cases  ante,  I  190,  n.  11. 

3  Bees  V.  Waters,  9  Watts,  90,  94. 


g§  193-193  wife's  equity.  272 

§  192,  On  whose  application  wifo's  equity  is  enforced. — 
In  cases  where  a  fund  is  actually  in  court,  and  it 
appears  that  it  would  be  payable  to  a  married  woman 
if  she  were  not  married,  the  court  before  distributing  it 
maj'^  inquire  whether  such  married  woman  has  had  a 
soV-lement,  and  if  she  has  not  may  make  one  on  her.i 
Or  if  there  is  a  trustee  of  such  fund  he  may  ask  the 
court  to  direct  him  to  pay  a  share  thereof  to  the  wife.^ 
So  her  husband  may  apply.'  So  she.  maj' herself  by 
her  next  friend  institute  the  proceedings  and  ask  for  a 
settlement.^  But  though  children  are  usually  included 
within  the  benefit  of  the  settlement,*  they  cannot  apply 
therefor,*'  and  the  settlement  must  be  made  during  the 
wife's  lifc.^  In  cases  where  she  does  not  herself  apply 
the  Gourt  may  summon  her  for  the  purpose  of  consult- 
ing her,8  but  she  may  in  open  court  waive  her  right.^ 

1  See  Britton,  9  Beav.  143  ;  Murray  v.  Elibank,  13  Ves.  1  ;  Wood- 
ward, 8  Irish.  Eq.  50;  Duvall  r.  Farmers,  4  Gill  &  J.  iJ2  ;  23  Am.  Dec. 
Ho-i  ;  Hullenbeck  r.  Bru(lt,2  Paige,  316;  Mj'ers,  Bail.  Eq.  23;  1  Dan. 
Ch.  Pr.  SH  ;  2  Perry  Trusts,  ?  627. 

2  See  Swan,  2  Hem.  <fc  51.  34  ;  Elibank  v.  Montolieu,  5  Ves.  737, 
743  ;  1  White  &  T.  Lead.  Cas.  424,  623,  628. 

3  See  Kenny  v.  Udall,  5  Johns.  Ch.  464,  470,  473. 

4  Elibank  r.  Montolieu,  3  Ves.  737,  743 ;  1  Whits  A  T.  Lead.  Cas. 
424;  Wallace  v.  Auldjo,  1  DeGe.x,  J.  &  J.  613;  Eedes,  II  Sim.  .56i)  ; 
Sturgis  )•.  Champiieys,  5  Mylne  it  C.  !I2,  lOo  ;  Woodward,  s  Irish  Eq. 
50,52;  Tobin  i:  Di.\on,2  Met.  422;  Moore,  14  Mon.  B.  2.') ) ;  Iveiinv  r. 
rdall,5  Johns.  Ch.  464,  470,  473  ;  Van  Epps  r.  Van  Deusen.l  I';iisf  •.  (i4, 
74  ;  25  Am.  Dec.  516  ;  Hill,  1  Strob.  Eq.  1  ;  Dearin  v.  Fitzputi  ick,  Meigs, 
551 ;  Poiiidexter  v.  JelTiios,  15  Gratt.  36;i ;  Barron,  24  Vt.  375,  3J1,  3U2. 

5  Hay  v.  Blanks,  7  Mon.  B.  347,  343 ;  post,  ?  195. 

6  Scriver  v.  Taplev,  2  Eden,  .337  ;  Amb.  .509  ;  Llovd  v.  Williams,  I 
Madd.  450;  Bell,  1  Kellv,  637;  Martin  c.  Sherman,  2  Saud.  Ch.  341  ; 
Barker  v.  Woods,  1  Sand.  Ch.  120. 

7  Delagarde  v.  Lampriere,  6  Beav.  344. 

8  2  Perry  Trusts,  ?  627,  cases  cited. 

9  1  Dan.  Ch.  Pr.  90  ;  post,  \  194. 

^  193.  Out  of  what  property  wife's  equity  to  a  settlement 
is  enforced.  —  A  court  of  equity  may  make  a  settlement 
on  the  wife  out  of  any  fund  of  hers  over  wliich  it  has 
jurisdiction,!  if  such  fund  has  not  been  reduced  to  pos- 


273  -mFE's  EQUITY.  §  193 

session  by  her  husband.^  Thus,  such  a  settlement 
may  be  made  out  of  any  fund  actually  in  court,^  or 
held  by  trustees  or  guardians  under  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  court,*  or,  as  in  the  case  of  legacies,^  etc.,  distrib- 
utable in  equity;^  and  this  is  so  though  the  fund  is 
composed  of  the  proceeds,''  or  rents  and  profits,^  of 
land,  and  whether  the  same  has  been  assigned  or  not.' 
But,  although  a  few  cases  hold  that  for  the  purpose  of 
making  such  a  settlement  eqviity  will  take  jurisdiction 
over  legal  choses  in  action  or  rights  enforcible  in  courts 
of  law,'"  the  better  established  view  is  that  equity  must 
have  jurisdiction  otherAvise  over  the  fund  or  no  settle- 
ment can  be  made  out  of  it."  And  no  settlement  can 
be  made  when  the  husband  has  obtained  complete  and 
absolute  possessioii  of  tlie  fund,^^  or  where,  as  in  the 
case  of  a  remainder,'^  tiie  fund  is  not  reducible  to  pos- 
session.'* 

1  Sturgis  V.  Champneys,  5  Mylne  &  C.  92,  lOfi  ;  Wiles,  3  Mfl.  1.  0  ; 
56  Am.  Dec.  TM  ;  1  White  &  T.  Lead.  Cas.  424  ;  infra,  n.  11 ;  cases  ante, 
i  l'J(»,  11.  11. 

2  Murray  v.  Elibaiik,  10  Ves.  84,  88  ;  Infra,  n.  12. 

3  Woorl ward,  S  Irish  Eq.  .50,  .52  ;  Brett  r.  Greenwell,  3  Yomigp  <fe  O. 
230 ;  Packer,  1  C'ollv.  C.  C.  02 ;  Coster,  n  Sim.  597  ;  Napier,  1  Dru.  &  W. 
•107  ;  Durr  c.  Bowyer,  2  McCord  Eq.  368,  .372. 

4  Brown  v.  Elton.  3  P.  Wms.  202  ;  Blount  v.  Bestland,  5  Ves.  515  ; 
T.lovd  r.  Mason,  5  Hare,  149  ;  Bradford  v.  Goldsboro,  15  Ala.  311,  316  ; 
Xapler  )'.  Howard,  3  Kellv.  192,  205  ;  Havs  x\  Blanks,  7  Mon.  B.  347, 
34S  •  Barrett  ?'.  Oliver,  7  Gill  &  J.  191  ;  Sawver  v.  Baldwin,  20  Pick. 
;i7S.  3S7 ;  Westbrook  r.  Gomstock,  Walk.  Ch.  314  ;  Stevenson  v. 
Brown,  4  N.  J.  Eq.  503,  .50.5;  Kenny  v.  Udall,  5  Johns.  Ch.  484,  472: 
Coppedge  v.  Threadgill.  3  Sneed,  577. 

5  Woodward,  8  Irish  Eq.  .50,  .52;  Bradford  v.  Goldsboro.  15  Ala. 
311,  316  :  Sawver  v.  Baldwin,  20  Pick.  .378,  .387  ;  Steven.son  v.  Brown,  4 
N.  J.  Eq.  .503,  .505 ;  Barron,  24  Vt.  375,  394. 

6  Wilos,  3  Md.  1,  9;  56  Am.  Dec.  733.    See  also  cases  cited  ante, 

I  !!»,  n.  11. 

7  Hill,  1  Strob.  Eq.  2, 16. 

8  StUTKis  V.  Champnevs,  5  Mvlne  &  C.  92. 105  ;  Puncomb  v.  Green- 
ncre,  28  Beav.  472  ;  2  DeGex  F.  <fe  J.  509  ;  Smith  r.  Matthews,  3  De 
Gex  P.  <t  .1.  1-39  ;  Hanson  ?•.  K'^atina,  4  Hare,  1  ;  Freeman  )•.  F  irily, 

II  Jur.  447 ;  Smith  v.  f,ong,  1  Met.  (Ky.)  486  ;  Barron.  24  Vt.  375,  391.  ' 

9  Sturgis  V.  Champnevs,  5  Mvlne  <fe  C.  97,  10.5,  106  ;  Jewson  v. 
Moulson.  2  Atk.  417,  419;  Macaulav  r.  Phillips,  4  Ves.  9  ;  1  White  & 
T,  Lead.  Cas.  447,  610  ;  Kenny  v.  Udall,  5  Johns.  Ch.  464,  473,  477  ;  ante, 
i  I'JO. 


§  194  wife's  equity.  214. 

10  "Winch  V.  Page,  Bush.  86,  87  ;  Oarley,  22  Oa.  178  ;  Parson,  9  N.  II. 
309  ;  Dearin  v.  Fitzpatrick,  Meigs,  551  ;  Barron,  24  Vt.  375,  392  ;  1  Bish. 
M.  W.  U  633,  et  seq. 

11  Wiles,  3  Md.  1,  9  ;  56  Am.  Dec.  733.  See  Guild,  16  Ala.  121 ;  Sims 
V.  Spaulding  2  Duval,  121 ;  Smith  v.  Peyton,  6  Mon.  263  ;  Thrasher  i'. 
Tuttlc,  22  Mc-Sil^  ;  State  v.  Kifbs.fi  Ilar.  &  J.  31,37  ;  Mann  v.  Higgius, 
7  (Jill,  2(i') ;  Hull,  -1  M(l.  fh.  'Js;! ;  McW-y  v.  Boggs,3  Md.  Ch.  I>4  ;  Carter, 

14  Suii'dcs  iV  M.  5I»  ;  I'dall  r.  Kmiiv,  3  Cowen,  591,  599,  609;  Haviland 
r.  Bloom,  U  Johns,  t'h.  25,  ITS;  Myers,  Bail.  Eq.  23;  Heath,  2  Hill 
Ch.  100, 104  ;  Dold  V.  Geiger,  2  Gratt.  98, 103, 104 ;  Poindexter  v.  Jeflfries, 

15  Gratt.  ;«i. 

12  Murray  v.  Elibank,  10  Ves.  84,  88  ;  Pool  v.  Morris,  29  Ga.  .374  ; 
Hurdt  V.  Courtenav.  ,  Met.  ( ICv.)  1.39;  Rees  i\  Waters,  9  Watts,  90 ; 
Thomas  v.  Sheppard,  2  McCord  Ch.  36  ;  16  Am.  Dec.  632  ;  Mitchell  v. 
Sevier,  9  Humph.  14li ;  Barron,  24  Vt.  375,  392  ;  ante,  §|  176-182. 

13  Browning  v.  Headley,  2  Rob.  (Va.)  340  ;  40  Am.  Dec.  755. 

14  See  Socket  v.  Wray,  2  Atk.  6,  n.  ;  Frazer  r.  Bailie,  1  Bro.  Ch.  .518  ; 
Richards  v.  Chambers,  10  Ves.  580  ;  Woollands  r.  Crowcher,  12  Ves. 
175;  Duherly  v.  Day,  16  Beav.  33;  Sili>  r.  Sanndcrs,  24  Mis.s.  24; 
57  Am.  Dec.  157  ;  Terry  r.  Brunson,  1  l!i  h.  Krj.  7s  ;  Reese  v.  Holmes, 

5  Rich.  Eq.  531 ;  Goodwin  v.  Moore,  4  Humph.  221  ;  Moore  r.  Thorn- 
ton, 7  Gratt.  99.     Contra,  Jackson  v.  Sublett,  10  Mon.  B.  469  ;  Weeks, 

6  Ired.  Eq.  Ill ;  47  Am.  Dec.  358  ;  Similie,  22  Pa.  St.  l;». 

?  194.  Under  what  circumstances  the  wife's  equity  is 
enforced. — Whether  a  settlement  .shall  bo  made  seems 
to  be  determined  by  the  practice  of  the  particular  court, 
and  to  be  within  its  discretion. ^  In  cases  where  it 
would  grant  to  a  wife  maintenance,'^  or  a  divorce  with 
alimony,^  it  would  not  hesitate  to  make  her  an  allow- 
ance out  of  her  funds  within  its  jurisdiction.*  Her  con- 
duct and  condition  affect  the  amount  of  the  settlement^ 
rather  than  the  right  to  it;^  she  does  not  forfeit  her 
right  by  living  separate  from  her  husband,'  though  she 
does,  probably,  by  living  in  adultery .^  So  Avhen  the 
amount  of  her  fund  has  been  determined,'  and  she  is  of 
full  age,^"  she  may  waive  her  equity,"  though  this 
must  be  done  in  open  court,!'  qj.  jj^  some  equally  formal 
manner,!^  her  mere  joinder  in  her  husband's  assign- 
ment not  being  sufficient."  The  smallness  of  the  fund 
is  no  bar  to  the  settlement.'^  But  the  wife  may  be 
barred  as  against  assignees  by  her  fraud.'* 

1  Kenny  v.  Udall,  5  Johns.  Ch.  464,  474.  See  Giacomettl  v.  Prod- 
gers,  Law  R.  14  Eq.  253  ;  Scott  v.  Spashett,  16  Jur.  157  ;  Coster,  9  Sim. 
597  ;  Brett  v.  Greenwell,  3  Younge  &  C.  230. 


275  wife's  equity.  g  195 

2  Stewart  M.  &  D.  5  170. 

3  Stewart  M.  &.  D.  ??  353-399. 

4  Eenvvick,  10  Paige,  421 ;  Uaviland  r.  Mj'ers,  6  Johns.  Ch.  25,  178  ; 
Rees  V.  Waters,  9  Watts,  90. 

5  Post,  I  196. 

G    Carter,  14  Smedes  &  M.  59.    Compare  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ?  371. 

7  Eedos,  11  Sim.  569  ;  Greedy  v.  Lavender,  13  Beav.  62 ;  Carter,  14 
Smedes  &  M.  59. 

8  Carr  v.  Estebroolce,  4  Ves.  146  ;  Ball  v.  Montgomerj',  2  Ves.  Jr. 
191  ;  Watkyns,  2  Atk.  97  ;  Lewin,  20  Beav.  378. 

9  Edmunds  v.  Townshend,  1  Anstr.  93  ;  Jernegan  r.  Baxter,  6 
Madd.  32  ;  Sperling  v.  Rochfort,  8  Ves.  180  ;  Packer,  1  Colly.  C.  C.  92  ; 
Watson  V.  Marshall,  17Beav.  363  ;  Bendyshe,  3  Jur.  N.  S.  727. 

10  Shipway  w  BalJ,  Law  R.  16  Ch.  I).  376  ;  Stnbbs  r.  Targan,  2  Beav. 
496  ;  Abraham  v.  Neweombe,  12  Sim.  .%6  ;  Warfleld,  11  Gill  &  J.  23  ; 
Udall  1'.  Kennv,  3  Cowen,590;  Cheatam  r.  Huff,  2  Tenn.  Ch.  61H ; 
Phillips  V.  Hesseil,  10  Humph.  197. 

11  And  see  Smith  v.  Atwood,  14  C4a.  402 ;  Wrightti.  Arnold,  14  Mon. 
B.  638  ;  Geddes,  4  Rich.  Eq.  301  ;  ."i?  Am.  Dec.  730  ;  Clark  v.  Smith,  13 
S.  C.  5.85. 

12  1  Dan.  Ch.  Pr.  95  ;  Campbell  v.  Freach,  2  Ves.  .321 ;  May  v.  Roper, 
4  Sim  360;  Ward  v.  Amory,  I  Curt.  419;  Coppedge  v.  ThreadgUl,  3 
Sneed,  577. 

13  Packer,  1  Colly.  C.  C.  92  ;  1  Dan.  Ch.  Pr.  95  ;  cases  supra,  n.  12. 

14  Kenny  v.  Udall,  5  Johns.  Ch.  4M,  470,  471 ;  ante,  §  181. 

15  Klncaid,  17  Eng.  L.  &  Eq.  396  ;  1  Drew.  326  ,  Cutler,  14  Beav.  224  ; 
Roberts  v.  Collett,  6  Smale  &  G.  138. 

16  Lush,  Law  R.  4  Ch.  591 ;  Sharpe  v.  Foy,  Law  U.  4  Ch.  35. 

§  195.  For  whose  benefit  wife's  equity  is  enforced.  —  The 
income  is  usually  left  with  the  husband  when  he  is 
living  with  and  supporting  his  wife  at  the  time 
of  the  settlement,!  but  if  they  are  living  apart,^  or  for 
some  other  reason  she  needs  the  income  for  her  daily 
support,^  both  principle  and  income  are  settled  upon 
her.*  The  settlement  is  made  on  her  and  her  children,'^ 
including  children  unborn ,8  and  children  of  any  future 
husband.^  Still  she  may  waive  the  settlement  a.3 
against  the  children,^  and  is  entitled  thereto  though  the 
children  are  provided  for,^  and  the  children  have  not 
by  themselves  any  right  to  a  settlement.'"  After  her 
death  they  may  enforce  any  settlement  made  during 
her  life.i!  At  what  time  their  rights  attach  seems 
doubtful — according  to  differing  views  this  occurs  on 


§  195  wife's  equity.  27G 

ins-titution  of  the  suit,^^  on  the  making  of  an  interloc- 
utory order,  13  on  agreement  to  refer  to  arbitration,^' 
after  reference  to  a  master  and  before  his  report,'^  or 
only  on  the  rendition  of  the  final  decree,^^  or  some 
order  equivalent  thereto."  Her  waiver  or  death  after 
such  time  has  no  effect  on  the  rights.'^  If  tlie  wife  dies 
witliout  children,  the  husband,'^  or  his  next  of  kin  -" 
takes  the  settlement. 

1  Watkvns,  2  Atk.  96,  98  ;  Kenny  v.  XJdall  5  Johns.  Ch.  464,  4S0  ; 
Barron,  24  Vt,  375,  3S)5. 

2  Oxenden,  2  Vern.  474  ;  Eedes,  11  Sim.  569  ;  infra,  n.  4. 

3  Coster,  1  Keen,  200  ;  Wright  v.  Morley,  11  Yes.  23 ;  infra,  n.  4. 

4  See  ElUott  v.  Cardell,  5  Madd.  156;  Jacobs  v.  Amvatt,  1  Madd. 
376  ;  Covsegame,  1  Atk.  192  ;  Watkyns,  2  Atk.  96  :  Bond  v.  Simnions, 
3  Atk.  19  ;  81eech  ?'.  Thorington,  2  Ves.  Sr.  562  :  Wrisrht  v.  Morlev,  11 
Ves.  23;  Guy  v.  Perkes,  18  Ves.  196;  Duncan,  19  Ves.  396;  Ball  v 
Montgomery.  2  Ves.  Jr.  191 ;  Burden  v.  Dean, 2  Ves.  Jr.  609  ;  Brown  v. 
Clark,  3  Ves.  166  ;  Lumb  v.  Milnes,  5  Ves.  517 ;  Coster,  1  Keen,  200  ;  9 
Sim.  600  ;  Vaughan  v.  Buck,  13  Sim.  404  ;  Eedes,  U  Sim.  .569  ;  Duflfey, 
28  Beav.  .386;  Squires  v.  Ashford,  23  Beav.  132;  Koeber  ?r.  Sturgis,  22 
Beav.  588  ;  Wilkinson  v.  Charlesworth,  16  Law  J.  Ch.  :5S7  ;  Montefiore 
V.  Behrens,  Law  R.  1  Eq.  171 ;  Van  Dugen,  6  Paige  366. 

5  Murray  v.  Elibank,  13  Ves.  1,6;  Johnson,  1  Jacob  <fe  W.  479  ; 
Grosvenor  v  Lane,  2  Lane.  2  Ark.  ISO  ;  Havs  v.  Blanks,  7  Mon.  B.  347, 
348  ;  Beniiet  v.  Dillingham,  2  Dana,  436  ;  Hall,  4  Md.  Ch.  283  ;  Mann  ?•. 
Higgins,  7  Gill,  265;  Mumford  v.  Murjray,  1  Paige,  620;  Kenny  v. 
XJdall,  5  Johns.  Ch.  464. 

6  Croxton  v.  May,  Law  R.  9  Eq.  404  ;  cases  supra,  n.  6. 

7  Cro-xton  V.  May.Law  R.  9Eq.404. 

8  Delagarde  v.  Lempriere,  6  Beav.  365  ;  Baldwin,  5  DeGe.x  <fc  S.  310. 

9  Pryor  v.  Hill,  4  Bro.  C.  C.  13S. 

10  Scriver  v.  Taplev,  Arab.  509;  2  Eden,  337  ;  Greer  v.  Boone,  5 
Mon.  B.  554  ;  ante,  i  192. 

11  Murray  v.  Elibank,  13  Ves.  1 ;  14  Ves.  496  ;  1  White  &  T.  Lead. 
Cas.  424. 

12  Steinmetz  v.  Halthin,  1  Glyn  (fe  J.  G4.  Contra,  Wallace  v. 
Auldjo,  1  DeGox  J.  &  S.  643  ;  8  Hare,  10. 

13  Gower  v.  Clarke,  1  Keen,  132 ;  Grove  v.  Perkins,  6  Sim.  584. 

14  Lloyd  V.  Mason,  5  Hare,  149  ;  14  Law  J.  N  S.  Ch.  257. 

15  Murrav  v.  Elibank,  14  Ves.  496 ;  Micaulev  r.  Phillips,  4  Ves.  15  ; 
Baldwin,  5  DeGex  &  S.  319  ;  15  Eug.  Law  &  Eq.  158  ;  Hobgood  v. 
Martin,  31  Ga.  62. 

16  Murray  v.  Elibank,  10  Ves.  84  ;  Lloyd  v.  Williams,  I  Madd.  450  ; 
Delagarde  v.  Lempriere,  6  Beav.  -347  ;  Greer  v.  Boone,  5  Mon.  B.  554. 

17  Murray  v.  Elibank,  18  Ves.  84  ;  Gardner,  2  Ves.  Sr.  671  ;  Whittem 
t\  Sawyer,  1  Beav.  593. 

18  Barker  v.  Lea,  Madd.  <fe  G.  330  ;  supra,  n.  17. 

19  Walsh  u.  Mason,  Law  R.  8  Ch.4S2. 


277  wipe's  equity.  §  136 

20  Carter  v.  Taggert,  1  DeGex  :M.  &  G.  286  ;  Bagshaw  v.  Winter,  5 
DeGex  &  «.  466. 

^  193.  The  amount  of  tli3  settlement  to  which  wife's 
equity  entitles  har.  —  The  amount  of  t]ie  settlement  is 
largely  within  the  discretion  of  the  court, ^  and  depends 
upon  the  circumstances  of  the  particular  case.'^  The 
court  considers  the  age  and  condition  of  the  wife,^  the 
ages  and  number  of  the  children,*  her  pecuniary- 
wants,''  and  whether  any  previous  settlement  has  been 
made;  6  it  will  be  more  inclined  to  be  liberal  to  the 
wife  as  against  her  husband  than  as  against  his  as- 
signees for  valued  In  some  cases,  as  where  the  hus- 
band is  insolvent,*  or  is  living  separate  from  her  by  his 
fault,^  or  her  needs  are  great, ^^  the  wliole  may  be 
awarded  her  ;  '^  or  at  least  the  greater  part.^^  One  half 
is  an  ordinarj-  allowance.*^  Less  will  be  awarded  her 
if  she  is  in  fault.'* 

1  Kenny  v.  Udall,  5  /ohns.  Ch.  464,  479. 

2  Elibank  v.  Montolieu,  .5  Ves.  7:i',  743;  1  White  &  T.  Lead.  Ca.s. 
424;  Jewson  v.  Moulson,  2  Atk.  42:5;  Worrall  v.  Marhir,  1  Cox,  15.i; 
Brown  v.  Clarke,  ;{  Ves.  166  ;  Cliassaing  v.  Parsonage,  5  Ves.  15  ; 
Pearce  v.  Crutcbfleld,  14  Ves.  206  ;  Dunkley,  2  DeGex,  M.  &  G.  396  ; 
Biigshaw  V.  Winter,  .5  DeGex  &  S.  466  ;  Coster.  9  8im.  597  ;  Gardner 
V.  Marshall.  14  Sim.  575  ;  fireen  v.  Otte,  1  Siusse  &  S.  2.50 ;  Francis  v. 
Brooking,  19  Beav.  347  ;  Marshall  ?•.  Fowler,  16  Beav.  249  ;  Beeman  r. 
Cowser  22  Ark.  429;  Napier  v.  Howard,  :J  Kellv,  205;  Bowling  v. 
Winslow,  5  Mon.  B.  31;  Hall,  4  Md.  Ch.  283,  286;  SirVey  v.  Boggs,  3 
Md.  Ch.  94  ;  Bennett  v.  Oliver,  7  (iill  &  J.  191  ;  Helms  v.  Franeiscus,  2 
Bland,  545  ;  20  Am.  Dec.  402  ;  Kennv  v.  Udall,  5  .lohns.  Ch.  464, 
478,  479  ,  White  v.  Gouldin,  27  Gratt.  491 ;  Barron,  24  Vt.  375,  395. 

3  Davis  V.  Newton,  6  Met.  537,  544. 

4  Barron,  U  Vt.  375,  395. 

5  Kenny  v.  Udall,  5  Johns.  Ch.  464,  479. 

6  Elibank  v.  Montolieu,  5  Ves.  737,  743  ;  Dunklev,  2  DeGex,  M. 
<fe  G.  390. 

7  See  cases  cited  supra,  n.  2. 

8  White  V.  Cordwell,  Law  R.  20  Eq.  CAi  \  Brett  v.  Greenwell,  3 
Younge  &  C.  230. 

9  Burrows  12  Eng.  L.  A  Eq.  268. 

10  Gent  V.  Harris,  10  Hare,  383  ;  supra,  n.  2. 

11  Breit  V.  Greenwell,  3  Younge  &  C.  230  ;  Renwick,  10  Paige,  421 ; 
Rees  (I.  Waters,  9  Watts,  90  ;  supra,  n.  2. 

12  Coster,  9  Sim.  597  ;  Spirett  v.  Willows,  Law  R.  1  Ch.  520 ;  Law  R. 
4  Ch.  407 

13  Peachey  Mar.  Sett.  176, 177  ;  2  Bright.  H.  &  W.  241  ;  cases  cited. 

14  Compare  Stewart  M.  &  D.  5  371 ;  o?i«e,  J  194. 

H.  &  W.  —  24, 


2  197  wife's  equitable  estate.  278 


CHAPTER   XII. 
wife's  equitable  separate  estate. 

i  197.  Defined. 

i  198.  Creation  of. 

i  199.  Settlor's  intent  to  exclude  husband. 

i  200.  Words  which  show  such  intent. 

i  201.  Present  and  future  husbands. 

I  202.  Necessity  of  trustee  —  Husband  as  trustee. 

^  203.  Wife's  control  over. 

g  201.  Eestraints  on  alienation  and  anticipation. 

§  20.5.  Wife's  power  to  dispose  of  inter  vtros. 

?  206.  Wife's  power  to  contract  concerning  — Rules. 

J  207.  Wife's  power  to  contract  concerning—  Decisions. 

i  20S.  Wife's  power  to  will. 

J  209.  Wife's  rights  in  increase  —  Rents,  profits,  etc. 

I  210.  Remedies  of  wife  concerning. 

I  211.  Remedies  against. 

?  212.  Riglus  of  husband  and  liis  creditors  over. 

I  213.  How  lost  or  extinguished. 

g  214.  Effect  of  death  upon. 

I  215.  Effect  of  divorce  upon. 

{  216.  Effect  of  modern  statutes  upon. 

J  197.  "Wife's  equitable  separate  estate  defined.  —  A  mar- 
ried woman's  equitable  separate  pi-operty  (also  called 
her  "soZe  and  separate  estate^^)^  is  property  which  is  so 
settled 2  upon  her  that  courts  of  equity"  recognize  it 
during  her  coverture*  as  her  own,»  unatfected  by  her 
husband's  marital  rights.*  In  her  ordinary  equitable 
estates  all  the  marital  rights  of  her  husband  exist ; '  but 
by  the  recognition  of  the  wife's  equity,*  and  of  her  sole 
and  separate  estate,'  courts  of  equity  to  some  degree 
diminished  the  harshness  of  the  common-law  rules." 
This  estate  is  still  of  importance,  as  married  women 
separate  property  acts  have  not  destroyed  it." 

1  Clarke  v.  Windham,  12  Al.o,  7:)8,  800  ;  2  Perry  Trusts.  J  ftlG. 

2  As  to  creation  of,  see  post,  ?  11)8. 


279  wife's  equitable  estate.  g  198 

3  As  to  Jurisdiction  of  courts  of  law  and  of  equity,  see  post,  §  210. 

4  As  to  effect  of  dissolution  of  marriage,  see  post,  ??  214,  215. 

5  As  to  rights  and  powers  of  wife  over,  see  post,  ?§  203-211. 

6  As  to  rights  of  liusband  and  his  creditors  over,  see  post,  ?  212. 

7  Banks  v.  Green,  35  Arlc.  84,  8S  ;  ante,  it  148,  157,  164,  101  ;  post, 
i  I'JS),  n. 

8  White  V.  Gouldin,  27  Gratt.  491,  507  ;  ante,  ??  190-196. 

9  Hulme  v.  Tenant,  1  Bro.  C.  C.  16 ;  1  White  &  T.  Lead.  Cas.  481, 
4th  Am.  ed.  679. 

10  2  Perry  Trusts,  i  625. 

11  Short  V  Battle,  52  Ala.  4-56,  466,  467  ;  post,  i  216. 

§  198,  Creation  of  wife's  equitable  separate  estate.  —  A 
wife's  equitable  separate  estate  is  created  by  a  settle- 
ment to  her  sole  and  separate  use.^  The  settlement 
may  be  antenuptial  ^  or  postnuptial,^  Avritten,*  or  in  the 
ease  of  personalty  oral,*  by  deed,*  or  by  will,'  in  trust,^ 
or  direct; 9  it  may  and  generally  does  refer  only  to 
property  which  it  vests  in  her,'"  but  it  may  also  as  in 
the  case  of  an  antenuptial  agreement  between  her  hus- 
band and  herself,'!  refer  to  property  otherwise,'^  or  in 
some  special  way,'^  acquired.  The  settlor  may  be  a 
stranger,'*  her  husband,'^  or  herself.'*  The  settlee  may 
be  unmarried  and  unengaged,''  unmarried  but  on  the 
eve  of  marriage,'^  or  already  married."*  The  sole 
requisite  is  that  the  terms™  of  the  settlement  show  that 
it  was  intended  by  the  settlor,'^'  that  in  tlie  property  in 
question^  the  husband  in  question''^  sliould  have  no 
marriage  rights.^*  If  the  settlement  is  made  by  a 
stranger  and  is  accepted  by  the  husband,  both  erro- 
neously supposing  that  it  creates  an  eqviitable  separate 
estate  in  the  wife,  it  will  be  given  this  eflfect;*  but 
ordinarily  the  husband  by  treating  the  wife's  realty  as 
her  own  does  not  create  in  her  a  separate  estate  there- 
in ;2*  and  so  of  her  personalty,^'  unless  his  conduct 
proves  a  gift  from  him  to  her.^^ 

1  Darby,  3  Atlc.  3ii9  ;  cases  cited  infra. 

2  See  "  Antenuptial  Settlements."  discussed  Stewaxt  M.  &  D. 
li  32-43. 


g  109  avife's  equitable  estate.  280 

3  See  Postnuptial  Settlements,  discussed  ante,  H  99-134; 
"  Deeds  of  Separation,"  disc'ussecl  Stewart  M.  ife  D.  §§  181-192. 

4  Morrison  v.  Ttiistle.  67  Mo.  o  ,6,  509. 

5  Porter  v.  Bank,  19  Vt.  410,  419.  S.  P.  Betts,  18  Ala.  787,  790  ;  Gil- 
lespie V.  Burlinson,  28  Ala.  SSI,  5fi4  ;  WatBon  v.  Broaddus,  6  Bush,  S28, 
Xi)  ;  Chew  v.  Beall,  r'-  :M(1.  ;M8,  360  :  George  v.  Spencer,  2  Md.  Ch.  H5.'i, 
3fi0;  Jaok.son  r.  MrAlil.v.  Spear  Eq.  303,  307;  40  Am.  Dec.  620  ;  Pond 
V.  Skeen,  2Lea,  ]2(;,  i:iO,  131. 

6  Paul  V.  Leavitt,  53  Mo.  595,  598. 

7  Dee  v.  Prieau.t,  3  Bro.  Ch.  381,  385. 

8  Fears  v.  Brooks,  12  Ga.  195, 197 ;  post,  \  202. 

9  Wood,  83  N.  Y.  575,  579  ;  post,  i  202. 

10  Mounger  v.  Duke,  .53  Gv,.  277,  231. 

11  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ^  32-4.3. 

12  Klenke  v.  Koeltze,  75  Mo.  239,  243. 

13  As  in  the  case  of  her  earnings,  ante,  ?  65. 

14  Sledge  V.  Clopton,  6  Ala.  589, 59u  ;  Charles  v.  Coker,  2  S.  C.  (N.  S.) 
122,  129,  i;«. 

15  Williams,  68  Ala.  405,  406. 

16  Dean  v.  Brown,  2  Car.  <fe  P.  62,  63  ;  Arnold  v.  Woodhanes,  T,aw 
R.  16  Eq.  21).  33.  Before  marriage  if  not  in  evasion  of  marriage  rights  : 
See  Stewart  M.  &  D.  i  44. 

17  Newlands  v.  Paynter,  4  Mylne  <ft  C.  408,  417,  418  ;  Tullett  r.  Arm- 
strong, 1  Beav.  1;  4  Mvlne  <fe  C.  377,  390  ;  Metropolitan  ?■.  Tavlor,  .'iS 
Mo.  444,  4.il  ;  Shirley,  9  Paige,  363,  3W  ;  Beaufort  r.  Collier,  (i  liiiniph. 
4S7,  4.11;  44  Am.  Dec.  321.  The  rule  was  formerly  otherwise:  .See 
Massey  v.  Parker,  2  Mvlne  &  K.  174;  Lindsev  ?'.  Harrison,  2  Eng. 
311  ;  Gully  r.  Hall,  31  Miss.  20;  Bridges  v.  Wiikins,  3  .Tones  Eq.  ;i42  ; 
Muler  ri.  Bingham,  1  Ired.  423;  Hiunersley  >■.  Smith,  4  Whart.  126. 
So  in  Pa.  now :  Snyder,  92  Pa.  St.  504,  50:).    See  further  post,  J  201. 

IS  Snyder,  92  Pa.  St.  504,  509. 

19  Mounger  v.  Duke,  53  Ga.  277,  281. 

20  Paul  V.  Leavitt,  53  Mo.  .595,  .598  ;  Pond  v.  Skeen,  2  Lea,  126, 130, 131. 

21  Vail,  49  Conn.  .52,  .53  ;  post,  ?  199. 

22  Klenke  v.  Koeltze,  7.5  Mo.  2.39,  243,  244  ;  supra,  notes  10-12. 

23  Tullett  V.  Armstrong,  1  Beav.  1 ;  4  Mylne  &  C.  377,  390. 

24  Bowen  v.  Lebree,  2  Bush,  112,  115  ;  post,  ?  199,  n.  3. 

25  Mounger  v.  Duke,  53  Ga.  277,  281.    See  Betts,  18  Ala.  787,  791. 

26  Klenke  v.  Koeltze,  75  Mo.  239,  243. 

27  Pond  V.  Skeen,  2  Lea,  126,  132. 

28  Welch,  63  Mo.  51,  61  ;  ante,  I  127. 

\  199.  The  settlor's  intent  to  exclude  the  husband's  mar- 
riage rights.  —  Tlie  settlor's  intent  to  exclude'^  the  lius- 
band's  marriage  rights  in  the  property  must  clearly" 
appear  from  the  terms  of  the  settlement,  to  create  in 
the  wife  an  equitable  separate  estate  therein.^    If  no 


281  wife's   EQTTITABLE   ESTATE.  §   199 

such  intent  appears,  there  is  created  at  best  an  ordinary- 
trust  for  a  married  woman,  in  which  the  husband  has 
all  marriage  riglits,'*  subject  only  to  his  wife's  equity  to 
a  settlement.^  Wlien  it  is  a  settlement  of  personalty 
made  orally,®  tlie  settlor's  intent  may  be  proved  by 
his  declarations,  etc.,  made  at  the  time.^  But  in  the 
case  of  a  written  settlement,  while  the  court  will  search 
the  four  corners  of  the  document  and  be  satisfied  if  the 
intent  apjiears  in  any  part  thereof,^  and  while  it  will 
allow  an  ordinary  deed  to  be  controlled  by  an  ante- 
nuptial settlement.^  it  will  not  allow  an  ordinary  deed 
to  be  changed  by  parol  into  a  deed  to  the  wife's  sole 
and  separate  use,'"  applying  rigorously  the  rule  that 
the  terms  of  a  document  may  not  be  altered  by  oral 
evidence."  In  the  case  of  a  settlement  by  the  husband 
of  personalty  his  intent  to  exclude  bis  rights  will  be 
presumed,'^  otherwise  the  settlement  would  have  no 
effect  at  all  ;^^  but  if  it  is  of  realty  the  instrument  must 
show  his  intent  or  he  will  take  the  rents  and  profits,^* 
as  he  does  of  her  other  realty.'^  Still  the  intent  to  give 
the  wife  the  sole  enjoyment  of  her  property  will  be 
more  readily  proved  in  a  settlem.ent  from  her  husband 
than  in  one  from  a  stranger.'^  The  technical  words  to 
show  this  intent  are  properly  inserted  in  tire  haben- 
dum.,^'' and  arc,  "to  have  and  to  hold  to  her  sole  and 
separate  use";'^  but  no  technical  words  are  neccs- 
sary,i9and  many  other  phrases  have  been  held  equally 
conclusive.^" 

1  Bowen  v.  Lebree,  2  Bush,  n2,  115;  Paul  v.  Leavitt,  53  Mo.  505, 
5i)8;  Beaufort  v.  Collier,  C  JIumpli.  4S7,  430;  44  Am.  Dec.  :i21  ;  infra, 
u.  3. 

2  Vail,  49  Conn.  52,  .5".;  Buck  r.  Wroten,  24  Gr;itt.  2:^,  Z'tS,  255; 
infra,  n.  i. 

3  Hulme  V.  Tenant,  1  Bro.  C.  C.  ir> ;  1  White  &  T.  Leai.  Cm.  4S1, 
4th  Am.  ed.  679  ;  Ray,  1  Madd.  199,  207  ;  Prout  v.  Ilohy,  15  Wall.  471, 
474;  Hale  v.  Stone,  14  Ala.  80:!,  citing  cases;  Cook  v.  Kennerly,  12 
Ala.  42,  46  ;  Jenkins  v.  McConico,  20  Ala.  213,  238  ;  Gaines  r.  Poor,  3 
M'n.  CKv.)  503,  50S  ;  Bowen  ?-.  Lebree,  2  Bush,  112.  115;  Watson  v. 
Broaddus,  6  Bush,  .328,  .329  ;  Brant  v.  Miokle,  23  Md.  4::6,  «J  ;  Carroll  v. 


§  200  wife's  equitable  estate.  282 

Lee,  3  GUI  &  J.  505,  508  ;  22  Am.  Dec.  330 ;  Williams  v.  Claiborne,  7 
Smedes  &  M.  48H,  495 ;  Hunt  v.  Booth,  1  Freem.  215,  218  ;  Paul  v. 
Leavitt,  53  Mo.  5'J5,  598 ;  Metropolitan  v.  Taylor,  5.'*  Mo.  444,  4.50 ; 
Ascroft  V.  Little,  4  Irert.  Eq.  2:?fi,  2:iS  ;  Kndisell  v.  Watson,  2  Dev.  Eq. 
4.30,  432  ;  Pond  v.  Skeen,  2  Lea,  126, 131 ;  Buck  v.  Wroten,  24  Gratt.  250, 
253 ;  infra,  n.  19. 

4  Rich  V.  Cockell,  9  Ves.  3T0,  377 ;  Lumb  v.  Milnes,  5  Ves.  517 ; 
Brown  V.  Clark,  3  Ves.  Ifi6  ;  Spirett  v.  Willows,  11  Jur.  N.  S.  70;  Wil- 
liams V.  Maull,20  Ala.  721,  727  ;  Lenoir  ?'.  Binney,  15  Ala.  667;  Banks 
V.  (Jreen,  35  Ark.  84,  88;  Vail,  49  Conn.  52,  .54;  Taylor  v.  Stone,  13 
8mertes  <fe  M.  653  ;  Hunt  )'.  Booth,  1  Freem.  215,  218  ;  Evans  v.  Knorr, 
4  Rawle,  66  ;  Graham,  Riley,  142 ;  Mayberry  v.  Neely,  5  Humph.  337, 
339  ;  ante,  U  148,  160,  164. 

5  White  V.  Gouldin,  27  Gratt.  491,  507 ;  ante,  ??  190-196. 

6  Chew  V.  BealL  13  Md.  U9,,  360 ;  ante,  ?  108. 

7  Watson  v.  Broaddus,  6  Bush,  ;J28,  329  ;  Pond  v.  Skeen,  2  Lea,  126^ 
130. 131 ;  Porter  v.  Bank,  19  Vt.  410,  419. 

8  Morrison  v.  Thistle,  67  Mo.  596,  .599. 

9  Klenke  v.  Koeltze,  75  Mo.  239,  243,  244. 

10  Paul  V.  Leavitt,  53  Mo.  595,  538. 

11  Stephens'  Digest,  art.  90  ;  Paul  v.  Leavitt,  5S  Mo.  595,  598. 

12  Deming  v.  Wi'liams,  26  Conn.  226,  2".l.  See  Whitten,  3  Cush.  194, 
199;  Wells  V.  Treadwell,  2.S  Miss.  717,  72;j;  Steel,  1  Ired.  Eq.  452,  455; 
Benedict  v.  Montgomerv,  7  Watts  <fe  8.  238,  242 ;  42  Am.  Dec.  230 ; 
Powell,  9  Humph.  477,  486. 

13  Personalty  would  vest  in  him  again  at  once  at  common  law : 
Ante, ''( 170.  Perhaps  under  statutes  a  statutory  separate  estate  would 
be  created  if  no  apparent  intent:  Williams,  68  Ala.  40.5,  40R. 

14  Hovt  V.  Parks.  •'^9  Conn.  3.^9,  360  ;  Plumb  v.  Joes,  39  Conn.  120, 123  ; 
Hutchinson  v.  Mitchell,  .39  Tex.  487,  492. 

15  Allen  v.  Hooper,  50  Me.  371,  373 ;  ante,  ??  146-150. 

16  Mounger  v.  Duke,  .53  Ga.  277,  281.  Presumed  in  case  of  deed  of 
separation :  Gaines  v.  Poor,  3  Met.  (Ky.)  503,  508. 

17  Not  necessarily  :  Morrison  v.  Thistle,  67  Mo.  596,  599, 

IS  Darby,  3  Atk.  399  ;  Williams  v.  Maull,  20  Ala.  721,  728, 729  ;  Clarke 
V.  Windham,  12  .\la.  798,  800. 

19  Stanton  v.  Hall,  2  Russ.  <fe  M.  175, 180  ;  Prichard  v.  Ames,  Turn. 
&  R.  222,  223;  Prout  v.  Robv,  15  Wall.  471,474;  Hale  v.  Stone,  14  Ala. 
803  ;  Fears  v.  Brooks,  12  Ga.  195,  198  ;  Brant  v.  Mickle,  28  Md.  436,  449  ; 
Morrison  r\  Thi.stle,  67  Mo.  5!»i,  599;  Street  v.  Kissam,  2  Barh.  494, 
496  ;  Davis  v.  Cain,  1  Ired.  Eq.  .305,  307  ;  Heathraan  r.  Hall,  3  Ired.  Eq. 
414,  420  ;  Charles  v.  Coker,  2  S.  C.  (N.  S.)  122,  133  ;  Hamilton  v.  Bishop, 
8  Yerg.  33.  40  ;  Beaufort  i'.  Collier.  6  Humph.  487, 491  ;  44  Am.  Pec.  :«1 ; 
Nixon  V.  Rosa,  12  Gratt.  425,  42S  ;  Porter  v.  Bank  19  Vt.  410,  419 ;  jwst, 
§200. 

20  Metropolitan  v.  Taylor,  .53  Mo.  444,  450  ;  post,  ?  200. 

g  200.  Words  in  settlement  on  married  woman  which 
show  intent  to  exclude  husband's  rights.  —  No  technical 
words  are  necessary  to  create  an  equitable  .separate 
estate  In  a  married  woman, '  but  tlie  terms  of  the  settle- 


283  wife's  equitable  estate.  §  200 

ment  must  show  the  settlor's  intent  to  secure  the  prop- 
erty to  her  free  from  marital  rights.^ 

1.  The  following  phrases  by  themselves  have  this 
effect:  "For  her  sole  and  separate  use."^  "For  her 
sole  use."*  "As  her  separate  estate."^  "Only  as  and 
for  her  own  separate  estate,  free  from  the  control  of  her 
husband." 8  "For  her  tull  and  sole  use  and  benefit."  ^ 
"For  her  own  sole  use  and  benefit." *  "For  her  sole 
use  and  benefit."  ^  "  To  her  exclusive  use,  benefit,  and 
behoof."^"  "For  her  exclusive  use  and  benefit."  " 
"For  her  exclusively."  ^^  "  For  her  sole  and  absolute 
use."  ^  "  For  her  own  use  and  at  her  own  disiwsal."  " 
"For  her  sole  use,  benefit,  and  disposition."  ^^  "  To  be 
at  her  own  disposal,  and  to  do  therewith  as  she  shall 
think  fit."  18  "To  be  hers  and  hers  only."  "  For  her 
without  any  hindrance  or  molestation  Avhatever."  ^^ 
*'  For  her  own  use  and  benefit  independent  of  any 
other  person."  ^^  "  For  her  own  use  independent  of 
any  husband."^  "Not  subjected  to  the  control  of  her 
husband." 21  "Her  husband  to  have  no  control." 22 
"  Not  to  be  sold,  bartered,  or  traded  by  the  husband."  ^ 
"  For  her  livelihood."  2*  "  As  an  allowance  for  her  pin- 
money."''^  And  perhaps  such  i^rovisions  as  "her 
receipt  to  be  a  sufficient  discharge,"  ^^  "to  her  free 
from  her  husband's  debts," 2'  "to  her  to  receive  the 
rents  while  she  lives  whether  married  or  single."  ^^ 

2.  The  following  phrases  by  themselves  have  not 
this  effect:  "To  A's  wife."'-^  "In  trust  for  her." so- 
"For  her  use."^i  "For  her  own  use."'^  "For  her 
proper  use."^  "In  trust  for  her  for  life  to  pay  the 
same  to  her  and  her  assigns."  ^i  To  her  and  her  chil- 
dren." ^^  "  To  enjoy  as  she  sees  fit.'"*  "  For  joint  use 
of  herself  and  her  husband." ^^  And  perhaps^  "to  be 
free  from  her  husband's  debts." ^s 

3.  Where  the  words  are  in  themselves  ambiguous, 


g  200  wife's  equitable  estate.  284 

the  court  looks  all  through  the  settlement  to  explain 
them  and  find  the  iutGnt,^^  and  so  in  one  case  the  settle- 
ment was  held  to  create  a  separate  estate  because  it  was 
made  "for  fear  she  might  marry  some  improvident 
man";^"  it  will  liliewise  consider  tlie  circumstances 
under  which  it  was  made,"  and  the  fact  tliat  the  woman 
is  married  or  about  to  marry  is  important.*^  On  the 
other  hand  words  ordinary  sufficient  may  be  so  used 
as  not  to  create  a  separate  estate,^  as  where  a  man 
devised  property  "to  the  sole  use  and  benefit"  of  his 
widow,  and  it  was  held  he  did  not  contemplate  a  future 
marriage  or  thereby  create  a  separate  estate.^^ 

4.  Words  whicli  exclude  one  iiusband  do  not  neces- 
sarily exclude  all,^^  and  words  which  exclude  a  hus- 
band's rights  during  coverture  do  not  necessarily 
exclude  liis  rights  as  widower.*^ 

1  Brant  v.  Mickle,  2S  Md.  436,  449  ;  ante,  ?  VJ'X 

2  Wood  1'.  Polk,  12  Heisk.  220,  223,  224  ;  ante,  ?  109. 

3  Parker  v.  Brooke,  9  Ves.  5S3,  5S7 ;  Adamson  v.  Armitncro,  10 
Ves.  415;  Darbv,  3  Atk.  3!)0 ;  Archer  ?•.  Korke,  7  IrLsli  K(|.  47.'^,  4S1  ; 
Williams  v.  Maull,20  Ala.  721,  728,  723;  Clarke  r.  Wi)idhain,  12  Ala. 
7:)S,  800;  Robinson  r.  O'Neal,  56  Ala.  .■)41  ;  Swain  v.  Duane,  48  fal. 
353  ;  Townshend  v.  Matthews,  10  Md.  251, 255. 

4  Lindsell  v.  Thaeker,  12  Sim.  178,  184;  Eav,  1  Madd.  190,  207; 
Archer  v.  Rorke,  7  Irish.  Eq.  478, 481  ;  Fears  «\  Brooks,  13  Ga.  195,  198  ; 
Ouishaber  v.  Hairmau,  2  Bush,  320,  321 ;  Steel,  1  Ired.  Eq.  452 ;  East- 
wick,  13Phila.  3.50. 

5  Fox  V.  Tlawks,  Law  R.  13  Ch.  D.  822,  832 ;  Swoin  v.  I»uaiie,  48 
Cal.  358,  3G0  ;  Fears  v.  Brooks,  12  Ga.  195, 198. 

6  Wood,  83  N.  Y.  575,  579. 

7  Arthur,  11  Irish  Eq.  511,  51.3. 

8  Killick,  3  Mont.  D.  <£;  D.  480,  487;  Inglefield  v.  CoghUui.  2  Collv. 
C.  C.  247  ;  Heathman  v.  Hall,  3  Ired.  Eq.  414. 

9  Lyne,  Younge,  562. 

10  Williams  r.  Avery,  38  Ala.  115,  117. 

U  Hutchins  1'.  Ilixon,  11  Md.  29,  37. 

12  (iould  V.  HUl,  18  Ala.  84,  86. 

13  Davis  r.  Prout,  7  Beav.  288 ;  Short  v.  Battle,  52  Al.a.  4.56. 

14  Prichard  v.  Ames,  Turn.  <&  R.  222,  223. 

15  Ray,  1  JIadd.  19!),  203,  204,  207. 

16  Kirk  r.  Paulin,  9  Yin.  Abr.  96,  pi.  43.    But  see  infra,  n.  &5. 

17  Ellis  V.  Y\'oods,  9  Rich.  Eq.  19  ;  Ogley  v.  Ikelheimer,  26  Ala.  Sn, 
33G. 


285  wife's  kquitabls  estate.  §  200 

18  Newman  i'.  James,  12  Ala.  29,  31 ;  Clarke  v.  Winciham,  12  Ala. 
738,  800. 

19  MargPtts  V.  Barlnser,  7  Sim.  4S2  ;  Williams  v.  Maull,  20  Ala.  721; 
Brown  v.  Johnson,  17  Ala.  2.32,  2:i3  ;  Asbcroft  r.  Little,  4  Ired  Eq.  236. 

20  AVagstafif  v.  Smith,  9  Ves.  520,  .523.    See  post,  I  201. 

21  Bai-i  V.  Lescher,  11  Sim.  317,  401. 

22  Edwards  v.  Jones,  14  Week.  R.  31.5. 

23  Woodrum  v.  Kirkpatrick,  2  Swan,  218. 

24  Darby,  3  Atk.  399 ;  Ray,  1  JIadd.  199,  208. 

25  Herbert.  Free.  Ch.  44  ;  Miller  v.  Wikes,  1  Eq.  Cas.  Abr.  66.  See 
ante,  U  188,  18a 

26  Charles  v.  Coker,  2  S.  C.  (N.  S.)  122, 129, 133.  See  Lee  v.  Pireaux, 
3  Bro.  Ch.  3-:|,  3S5  ;  Lunib  v.  Millies,  6  Ves.  517;  Stanton  v.  Hall,  2 
Russ.  &  M.  173, 18.8  ;  Blacklors  v.  Laws,  2  Hare,  40,  43. 

27  Young,  3  Jones  Eq.  216,  219.    But  see  !?i/ra,  n.  S7. 

28  Goulder  v.  Camm,  1  De  Gex,  F.  &  J.  146, 151 

29  Moore  r.  Jones,  13  Ala.  2:)6  ;  Fitch  v.  Ayer,  2  Conn.  143, 146. 

30  Vail,  49  Conn.  52,  54  ;  ante,  i  199,  n.  4. 

31  Guishaber  ?•.  Hairman,2  Bush,  320,  321.  See  Jacobs  r.  Amyatt,  1 
Madd.  37G,  n.  ;  Wills  v.  Sayers,  4  Madd.  4U  ;  Roberts  ?'.  Spicer,  5 
Madd.  491  ;  Prout  )'.  Robv,  15  Wall.  474 :  Fears  v.  Brooks,  12  Ga. 
19.5,  1!I8  ;  Merrill  r.  Bullock,  105  Mass.  486  ;  Rndisell  ?'.  Watson,  2  Dev. 
Eq.  430,  432;  Torbet  r.  Twinincr,  1  Yeates,  432  ;  Clevestine,  15  Pa.  St. 
499  ;  Tennent  v.  .Stoney,  1  Kich.  Eq.  222  ;  +4  .Am.  Dec.  213  ;  McDonald 
V.  Crockett,  2  McCord  Ch.  130.  But  see  Steel,  1  Ired.  Eq.  452;  Good 
V.  Harris,  2  Ired.  Eq.  638;  Hamilton  v.  Bishop,  8  Yerg.  33  ;  29  Am. 
Dec.  lOL 

32  Tvler  V.  Lake,  2  Russ.  .%  M.  183, 187;  Johnes  v.  Lockhart,  3  Bro.  C. 
O.  :J83,  11.;  Turton,  6  Md.  375,;i*4  ;  Brant  i'.  Mickle,  28  Md.  436,  449.  But 
see  Griffith,  5  Mon.  B.  113  ;  Heck  v.  Clippeii;;;-r,  5  Pa.  St.  3S5. 

33  Tvler  V.  Lake,  2  Russ.  <fe  M.  183,  1S7  ;  Blacklors  v.  Law.s,  2 
Hare,  4y. 

.   34    Dakins  v.  Berisford,  1  Ch.  Ca.s.  194. 
25    Dunn  v.  Bank,  2  Ala.  1.52. 
.36    Wood  V.  Polk,  12  Heisk.  220,  223. 

37  Gould  V.  Hill,  18  Ala.  84,  80  ;  Goycr  i-.  Broach.  21  Ala.  414. 

38  Pollard  v.  Merrill,  15  Ala.  16),  171 ;  Gillespie  v.  Burlinson,28  Ala. 
5.51,  .5W  ;  Lewis  v.  El  rod,  .38  Ala.  17,  IJ  ;  Harris  v.  Harbeson,  9  Busli, 
397,  403.    But  see  supra,  n.  27. 

39  Prichard  v.  Ames,  Turn.  &  R.  222,  223 ;  Morrison  v.  Thistle,  67 
Mo.  590,  599. 

40  Beaufort  r.  Collier,  C  Humph.  437,  431 ;  40  Am.  Dec.  32L 

41  But  not  to  vary  the  terms :  Paul  i'.  Leavitt,  53  Mo.  595,  5"8  ; 
ante,  ?  199. 

42  Gilbert  v.  Lewis,  1  DeGex,  J.  &  S.  38,  48. 

43  See  Wurdle  v,  Claxton,  9  .Sim.  624  ,  Lewis  v.  Matthews,  Law  R. 
2  Y.(\.  177 ;  Hackabee  r.  Andrnws,  34  Ala.  fill!,  651  ;  Vail,  49  Conn.  .5!,  .54; 
Brvan  v.  Duncan,  11  Ga.  67  ;  Clevestine,  15  Pa.  St.  499  ;  Foster  v.  Kerr, 
4  Rich.  Eq.  390. 

44  Gilbert  v.  Lewis,  1  DeGex,  J.  <fe  S.  38,  48. 

45  Moore  v.  Morris,  4.  Drew.  33,  37 ;  pijst,  I  201. 

46  Considered,  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ?  4fif.  ;  post,  i  214. 


§  201  wife's  equitable  estate.  286 

§  201.  When  rights  of  present  and  future  husbands  are 
excluded.  —  In  tiae  early  history  of  equitable  separate 
estates  it  was  doubtful  Avhether  such  estates  could  be 
created  in  unmarried  wonien,i  and  even  now  in  Penn- 
sylvania the  woman  must  at  least  be  contemplating 
marriage,^  but  it  is  generally  well  settled  at  present 
that  whether  the  woman  is  married  or  single  makes  no 
differenee,^  except  in  ascertaining  tlie  settlor's  purpose 
and  intent.^  Still  restraints  on  alienation  have  no  effect 
except  during  coverture.*  Where  a  settlement  is  made 
without  reference  to  any  particular  husband,  the  sepa- 
rate estate  exists  against  any  and  all  husbands  tlio 
woman  may  have.^  And  even  when  the  settlement 
does  refer  expressly  to  a  particular  husband,  if  it  con- 
tains sufficient  words  independently  of  this  reference 
to  create  an  equitable  separate  estate,  the  presence  of 
such  reference  will  not  limit  the  estate,  or  prevent  its 
existing  against  other  husbands  also.''  But  if  the  only 
clause  rendering  the  estate  separate  refers  to  a  particu- 
lar husband,  the  estate  will  exist  against  no  other,^  as 
the  settlor  may  have  objected  not  to  all  husbands,  but 
to  the  individual  named,^  and  to  exclude  a  husbaiul's 
rights  the  intent  must  be  clear.*"  Whether  a  particular 
husband  is,  or  all  husbands  are  excluded,  is,  after  all, 
only  a  question  of  intent." 

1  Massey  v.  Parker,  2  Mylne  &  K.  174,  overruled  4  Mvlne  <fe  C. 
377,  390. 

2  Snyder,  92  Pa.  St.  5(M,  50!). 

3  Newlands  r.  Paviiter,  4  Mvlne  &  C.  40S,  417, 418  ;  Fears  v.  Brooks, 
12  Ga.  195,  198  ;  ante,  i  198,  n.  IG. 

4  Gilbert  v.  Lewis,  1  DeGox,  J.  &  S.  38,  48  ;  ante,  ??  199,  200. 

5  Tullett  V.  Armstrong,  1  Boav.  1  ;  4  Mylne  &  C.  377, 394  ;  jxist,  ?  204. 

6  Tullett  tK  Armstrong,  1  Beav.  1 ;  4  Mvlne  &  C.  377,  ».)0,  405  ; 
Molyneux,  fi  I.  K.  Eq.  411,  416;  Gaffee,  1  Macn.  &  G.  541  ;  Shafto  r. 
Butler,  40  Law  J.  Ch.  .'iOS  ;  Phillips  v.  Grayson,  23  Ark.  769,  770  ;  Rob- 
erts V.  West,  15  Ga.  123  ;  Shirlev,  9  Paige,  364  ;  Beaufort  v.  Collier,  6 
Humph.  487,  491  ;  44  Am.  Dec.  321. 

7  Hawkes  r.  Hubback,  11  Law  B.  Eq.  5,  7  ;  Molyneux,  6  I.  R.  Eq. 
411, 416 ;  Phillips  V.  Grayson,  23  Ark.  769,  770. 


287  wife's  equitable  estate.  ^  202 

8  Moore  v  Morris,  4  Drew  33,  37  ;  Benson,  6  Sim.  126,  135. 

9  Moore  v.  Morris,  4  Drew.  33,  37. 

)0    Wood  1'.  Polk,  12  Heisk.  220,  222  ;  ante,  J  199. 
11    2  Perry  Trusts,  U  652,  653. 

^  202.  Necessity  of  trustee  of  equitable  separate  estate — 
Husband  as  trustee.  —  It  was  in  the  early  history  of  equi- 
table separate  estates  deemed  necessary  to  create  such 
an  estate  to  setttle  the  property  on  a  trustee,^  but  it 
was  soon  held  unnecessarj'  to  name  a  trustee  or  even 
to  make  the  .settlement  in  the  form  of  a  trust.^  A 
trustee  may  be  named,*  but  if  not,  the  husband  is 
deemed  to  have  a  bare  legal  title,  and  to  hold  in  trust 
for  his  wife,*  and  be  accountable  to  her  as  any  other 
trustee.^  In  this  way  gifts  from  him  to  her  were  sus- 
tained.^ Even  when  trustees  are  named,  their  concur- 
rence with  the  wife  in  her  dealings  Avith  the  property 
is  unnecessary ,7  unless  required  by  the  settlement.^ 
In  some  States  statutes  authorize  tlie  removal  of  the 
husband  from  his  trust;'  they  also  authorize  an  ap- 
pointment  of  a  trustee  for  the  wife,'**  and  in  making 
such  appointment  the  courts  have  held  the  husband 
an  unfit  person."  Any  one  who  takes  property  with 
knowledge  of  the  wife's  rights  holds  only  as  her 
trustee.'^ 

1  Fears  v.  Brooks,  12  Ga.  195,  197. 

2  Wood,  83  N.  Y.  575,  .579.  S.  P.  Moore  v.  Freeman,  Busb.  205; 
WallinKsford  v.  Allen,  10  Peters,  5»3,  5li4  ;  Sledge  v.  Cloptoii,  6  Ala. 
589,  599  ;  Riley,  25  Conn.  154,  161 ;  Trenton  v.  Woodrufif,  2  M.  J.  Eq.  117, 
126 ;  Shirley,  9  Paige,  363,  ;H64  ;  McKennan  v.  Phillips,  6  Whart.  571  ; 
37  Am.  Dec.  438 ;  Thompson  v.  McKusick,  3  Humph.  631 ;  infra,  n.  4. 

3  Eadford  v.  CarwUe,  13  W.  Va.  573,  578. 

4  Bennet  v.  Davis,  2  P.  Wms.  316  ;  Izod  v.  Lamb,  1  Cromp.  &  J.  3.5, 
44  ;  Wallingsford  v.  Allen,  10  Peters,  .5h3,  594  ;  Pepper  v.  Lee,  53  Ala. 
33  ;  Wilkinson  t;.  Cheatham,  45  Ala.  3;n  ;  Sadler  v.  Bean,  9  Ark.  202  ; 
Rilev,  25  Conn.  1.54,  161;  Fears  v.  Brooks,  12  Ga.  195,  197;  Gover  r. 
Owings,  16  Md.  91, 99 ;  Richardson  v.  Stodder,  100  Mass.  .528 ;  Holthaus 
r.  Hornbostle,  60  Mo.  439 ;  Trenton  v.  Woodruff,  2  N.  J.  Eq.  117,  126  ; 
Wood,  83  N.  Y.  575,  579  ;  O'Brien,  11  R.  I.  419;  Boykin  v.  Ciples,  2  Hill 
Ch.  2U0  ;  Hamilton  v.  Bishop,  8  Yerg.  33  ;  29  Am.  Dec.  101 ;  Porter  i'. 
Bank,  19  Vt.  410,  420  ;  ante,  U  42,  102. 

5  Gover  ti.  Owings,  16  Md.  91,  99  ;  Green  v.  Brooks,  25  Ark.  318,  324. 


§  203  WIFK's   KCiUITABLJi;    ESTATE.  288 

6  WalDngsforcl  v.  Allen,  10  Peters,  583,  594  ;  Burdeno  v.  Amperse, 
14  Mich.  'JO,  1)6  ;  Crawford,  61  Pa.  St.  55  ;  ante,  H  42,  125,  127, 132. 

7  Esspx  V.  Atkins,  14  Ves.  542,  .547 ;  Knowles,  SO  111.  1, 11  ;  Jaqiips 
J'.  IMethotlist,  17  Johns.  Ch.  .548  ;  Corgell  r.  Duiiton,  7  Pa.  St.  530,  5:{2  ; 
Burnett  v.  Hawpe,  25  Gralt.  481,  487 ;  RadXord  v.  Carwile,  13  W.  Va. 
573,  578. 

8  Essex  V.  Atkins,  14  Ves.  542,  547  :  Fears  v.  Brooks,  12  Ga.  195,  200 ; 
Gelston  v.  Frazier,  26  Md.  32!),  344  ;  Burnett  v.  Hawpe,  25  Gratt.  481, 
487.  .       .  .^.     -  .       -       -         • 

9  Fisk  V.  Stubbs,  iio  Ala.  333  ;  ante,  i  150. 

10  '  Johnson  v.  Snow,  5  R.  I.  72,  78. ' 

11  Ely  V.  Burgess,  U  R.  I.  115, 116.    See  Drew.  57  N.  II.  182. 

12  Sledge  V.  CloptOnv(!  Ala.  '.583;'.5M';  FH',  7'  Paige,  461,  463  ;  Jackson 
V.  McAliley,  Spear  Eq.  302,  .iOS.    Consult  ante,  H  4.5,  1:32. 

§  203.    Wife's  dominion  and  control  over  her  equitable 

separate  estate  generally.  —  With  reference  to  the  wife's 
powers  ovtn-  lier  etiuiiable  separiit-e  estate  two  views 
have  prevailed ;!  (1)  That  she  has  all  the  powers  of  a 
femme  sole  save  those  denied  her  by  tlie  terms  of  the 
settlement ;  ^  {2)  that  she  <  has  no  powers  save  those 
given  her  by  the  terms  of  the  settlement.^  Under  the 
first.rule  which  prevails.. in  England,'  Alabama,^  Ar- 
kansas,* California,^  Coiinocticnt,*  Illinois,''  Kentucky,'*' 
Marj^and,''  Missouri,'- New  Jersey,'^  New  York,"  Ton- 
nessee,'3  Texas,'*  Virginia,''  West  Virginia,'^  Wiscon- 
sin,'^  and  elsewhere,'^"  unless  the  settlement  restrains 
her,2'  she  may  convey -^  and  will'^  her  equitable  sepa- 
rate property  and  charge  it  with  her  contracts  2* — 
except  perhajjs  the  corpus  of.  the  realty  ■'5 — as  a  femme 
sole;  but  among  the  States  which  have  adopted  this 
rule  there  is  a  great  difference  of  view  as  to  what  pro- 
visions in  a  settlement  constitute  a  restraint, 2*  and  as  to 
what  contracts  of  a  married  woman  constitute  a  charge 
on  this  property.^'  The  second  rule,  Avhlch  i^revails  in 
Florida,-*  Mississippi,-'  North  Carolina,^''  Pennsyl- 
vania,3i  Rhode  Island,^''  and  South  Carolina,^^  and 
has  had  its  advocates  elsewhere,^*  has  the  merit  of 
simplicity,  for  the  wife  can  convey ,^^  will,^*  or  charge 
the  property  3'  only  if  so  empowered,  and  it  is  liable  for 


289  wife's  equitable  estate.  §  20S 

her  debts  only  if  the  settlement  so  jirovides.^^  "What- 
ever powers  the  wife  can  exercise  as  a  fe.nme  sole,  she 
can  exercise  in  favor  of  her  husband,^'  from  whom  in 
equity  she  is  a  distinct  person.^" 

1  Bisousserl  in  Hulme  v.  Tenant,  1  White  &  T.  Load.  Cas.  481,  4th 
Am.  ed.  679  ;  16  Cent.  Law  J.  24i  ;  17  Cent.  Law  J.  1  ;  Swift  v.  (Ja,stle,  23 
111.  2(X),  2il\  Jaques  r.  Methodist,  3  Johns.  Ch.  77,  113,  overruled  17 
Johns.  Ch.  .'HS,  .57S,  .^S'. ;  H  Am.  Dec.  447;  Yale  v.  Dederer,  W  N.  Y. 
265,  overruled  22  N.  Y.  4.50  ;  68  N.  Y.  329  ;  Ewing  v.  Smith,  3  Desaus. 
417, 462  ;  Young,  7  Cold.  461, 467  ;  Radford  v.  Carwile,  13  W.  Va.  573,  578- 
63-5. 

2  Elaborately  maintained  in  Radford  v.  Carwile,  13  W.  Va.  573, 
578-685. 

3  Elaborately  maintained  in  Ewing  v.  Smith,  3  De.3aus.  417,  462, 
et  seq. 

4  Hulme  V.  Tenant,  1  Brown  Ch.  16 ;  2  Dick.  560 ;  1  White  &  T. 
Lead.  Cas.  481,  notes  ;  Pyons  v.  Smith,  3  Brown  Ch.  346  ;  Fettiplace  v. 
Gorges,  3  Brown  Ch.  9;  Barford  i'.  Street,  16  VeS.  145;  Towney  v. 
Ward,  1  Beav.  563  ;  L9chm'-re  r.  Brotheridge,  32  Bekv.  3t)(l  ;  Noble 
V.  Willock,  Law  R.  8  Ch.  App.  "78 ;  Pride  v.  Bubb,  Law  R.  7  Ch.  61  ; 
Adams  r.  Gamble,  12  Jr.  Ch.  102  ;  11  Jr.  Ch.  269 ;  Crofts  v.  Middle- 
ton,  8  DeGe.x,  M.  &  G.  192;  Taylor  v.  Meads,  4  DeGex,  J.  <fe  S.  597; 
Moore  v.  Morris,  4  I)revv.  38. 

5  Wilburn  ?i.  McCalley,  63  Ala.  436.  447 ;  Gunter  v.  Williams,  40 
Ala.  .561  ;  PaUlk  v.  Wolfe,  34  Ala.  541 ;  Booker,  :Q  Ala.  473  ;  Caldwell  v. 
Sawver, :»  Ala.  283;  Baker  v.  Gregory,  28  Ala.  .544;  Wells  r.  Brans- 
ford,  28  Ala.  200 ;  Jenkins  v.  McConice,  26  Ala.  213  ;  Ozley  v.  Ikelheimer, 
26  Ala.  3;i2,  3.36  ;  McCrone  v.  Pope,  17  Ala.  612  ;  Bradford  v.  Greenway, 
17  Ala.  797,  805  ;  52  Am.  Dec.  203  ;  Puryear  v.  Beard,  14  Ala.  122,  134 ; 
Puryear,  16Ala.  486. 

6  Oswalt  V.  Moore,  19  Ark.  2.57,  261 ;  Collins  v.  Underwood,  33  Ark. 
266  ;  Henry  v.  Blackburn,  32  Ark.  445 ;  Dobbin  v.  Hubbard,  17  Ark.  189. 

7  Miller  v.  Newton,  23  Cal.  5.^  ;  Smith  v.  Greer,  31  Cal.  476,  473. 

8  Imlay  v.  Huntington,  20  Conn.  149,  175. 

9  Swift  V.  Costle,  23  111.  200,  222  ;  Pomeroy  v.  Manhattan,  40  111.  398. 
402. 

10  Lillard  v.  Turner,  16  Mon.  B.  374,  376  ;  Burch  v.  Breckenridge. 
IR  Mon.  B.  482  ;  Sweeny  v.  Smith,  15  Mon.  B.  32.5  ;  Bell  v.  Kellar  13 
Mon.  B.  381 ;  Coleman  i'.  Wooley,  10  Mon.  B.  320  ;  Jarman  v.  Wilker- 
son,  7  Mon.  B.  293 ;  Kelly,  5  Mon.  B.  3G9. 

11  Armstrong  v.  Kerns,  Md.  L.  Rec.  Mar.  22,  '84  ;  Hall  v.  Eceleston. 
37  Md.  510,  519  ;  Schull  v.  Murray, ;«  Md.  9,  15,  16  ;  Koontz  v.  Nabb,  16 
Md.  549,  .5;55 ;  Chew  v.  Beall,  13  Md.  348,  360 ;  Cooke  v.  Husbands,  11 
Md.  492,  501,  505. 

12  Coates  v.  Robinson,  10  Mo.  757,  760  ;  Schafroth,  46  Mo.  114,  116  ; 
Miller  c.  Brown,  47  Mo.  504,  .508  ;  4  Am.  Rep.  345  ;  Davis  v.  Smith,  75 
Mo.  219,  225  ;  Boatmen  v.  Collinson,  75  Mo.  2»0,  281. 

13  Armstrong  v.  Ross,  20  N.  J.  Eq.  109, 113  ;  Leaycraft  v.  Hedden,  4 
N.J.  Eq.512. 

14  Jaques  v.  Methodist,  17  Johns.  Ch.  548,  578,  .585,  overruling  3 
Johns.  Ch.  77,  113  ;  8  Am.  Dec.  447  ;  Yale  v.  Dederer,  22  N.  Y.  4.50,  4.59  ; 
68  N.  Y.  329,  overruUng  18  N.  Y.  265  ;  Yale  v.  Dederer,  17  How.  P;.  46  ; 

H.  &  W.  —  25. 


§  203  wife's  equitable  estate.  290 

20 How.  Pr.  342  ;  21  Barb.  286 ;  31  Barb.  525  ;  Dyatt  v.  Nbrrn,  20  Wend. 
570,  573;  Powell  r.  Murray,  2  Edw.  fi3fi,  643  ;  Cruger,  5  Barb.  227,268. 
Now  partially  regulated  by  3K.  S.  1882,  p.  2182,  i  63  ;  I/Amoureux  v. 
Van  Renselaer,  1  Barb.  Ch.  34,  37  ;  Rogers  v.  Ludlow,  3  Sand.  104,  108, 
109. 

15  Lightfort  V.  Boss,  8  Lea,  a51,  354  ;  Young,  0  Cold.  461,  467,  et  seq., 
citing  other  eases.  The  older  cases  seem  to  recognize  the  other  rule  : 
Marshall  v.  Stephens,  8  Humph.  159, 173  ;  47  Am.  Dec.  601 ;  Morgan  v. 
Elam,4  Yerg.  375. 

16  Hall  V.  Dotson,  55  Tex.  520,  524. 

17  Burnett  r.  Hawpe.  25  Gratt.  4sl,  486  ;  Muller  v.  Bailey,  21  Gratt. 
528  ;  Penn  t'.  Whitehead,  17  Gratt.  503  ;  Nixon  v.  Bose,  12  Gratt.  425. 

18  Radford  v.  CarwUe,  13  W.  Va.  57-'!)  573,  682  (1879),  citing  all  the 
cases. 

19  Todd  V.  Lee,  15  Wis.  3&5,  369  !  tpyfis.  480,  483. 

20  See  cases  cited  infra,  notes  28-33. 

21  "Wilburn  v.  McCallev,  63  Ala.  436,  447  ;  Hall  v.  Eccleston,  37  Md. 
510,  .519  ;  Jiiques  v.  Methodist,  17  Johns.  Ch.  548,  600  ;  8  Am.  Dec.  447  ; 
Burnett  v.  Hiiwpe,  25  Gratt.  481, 486  ;  Radford  v.  Carwilt,  13  W.  Va.  373, 
578 ;  post,  i  204. 

22  Chew  1'.  Beall,  13  Md.  348,  360  ;  post.  ?  205. 

23  Schull  !'.  Murray,  32  Md.  9, 15, 16  ;  poxt,  §  208. 

21    Shattock,  Law  R.  2  Eq.  182, 187  ;  post,  U  206,  207. 

25  Radford  v.  Carwile,  13  W.  Va.  573,  663,  669.  See  Armstrong  v. 
Ross,  20  X.  J.  Eq.  109, 117  :  Lee  v.  Bank,  9  Leigh,  20J,  206  ;  McChesney 
V.  Brown,  25  Gratt.  393,  404  ;  post,  H  206-208. 

26  Nixon  v.  Rose,  12  Gratt.  425,  431,  432  ;  post,  ?  204. 

27  Radford  v.  Carwile,  13  W.  Va.  573, 581,  602,  608,  ftS2  :  post,  U  206, 207. 

28  Staloy  v.  Hamilton,  19  Fla.  275,  296 ;  Dollner  v.  Snow,  K!  Fla.  86. 

29  Dotey  v.  Mitchell,  9  Smedes  <S^  M.  435,  447 ;  Montgomery  v. 
Agricultural,  10  Smedes  &  M.  567,  576." 

30  Hardy  v.  Holly,  84  N.  C.  661,  668  ;  Knox  v.  Jordan,  5  Jones  Eq. 
175. 

31  Maurer,  86  Pa.  St.  380,  385;  Wright  v.  Brown,  44  Pa.  St.  224,  238  ; 
Wells  v.  McCall,  64  Pa.  St.  207  ;  Rogers  ?'.  Smith  4  Pa.  St.  93, 98 ;  Lyne 
V.  Crouse,  1  Pa.  St.  Ill  ;  Dominie  v.  Scott,  3  Whart.  30!),  316  ;  Thomas 
V.  Folwell,  2  Whart.  11, 16  ;  Wallace  v.  Caston,  9  Watts,  137, 138  ;  Lan- 
caster V.  Dolan,  1  Rawle,  231,248  ;  18  Am.  Dec.  625. 

32  Metcalf  v.  Cook,  2  R.  I.  3i)5,  363. 

33  Creighton  v.  Clifford,  6  S.  C.  188, 198  ;  Ewing  r.  Smith,  3  De.saus. 
417,  462 ;  5  Am.  Dec.  557  ;  Reed  v.  Lamar,  1  Strob.  Eq.  27,  37  ;  Rochell 
r.  Tompkins,  IStrob.  Eq.  114,121  ;  Robinson  r.  Dart,  Dud.  Eq.  128.  131; 
Magwood  V.  Johnston,  1  Hill  Ch,  228, 230  ;  Trustees ii.  Center,  1  McCord 
Ch.  270,  275. 

34  See  Methodist  v.  Jaques,  3  Johns.  Ch.  77,  113  ;  8  Am.  Dec.  447  : 
Morgan  v.  Elam,4  Yerg.  375,  450  ;  Graj'  i>.  Robb,  4  Heisk.  74,  77  ;  Wil- 
liamson I'.  Beckham,  8  Leigh,  20,  27. 

35  Reed  v.  Lamar,  1  Strob.  Eq.  27,  37  ;  post,  I  205. 

36  West,  3  Rand.  173  ;  post,  ?  208. 

37  Creighton  v.  Clifford,  6  S.  C.  188, 198  ;  post,  ?  206,  207. 

38  Clark  r.  Makenna,  Cheves  Eq.  16.3.  This  is  not  quite  accurate  : 
Seepo«<,  ^2  206,207. 


291  wife's  kquitable  estate.  g  204 

39  Scarborough  v.  Wiitkins.  9  Men.  B.  MO,  547  ;  50  Am.  Dec.  528  ; 
Methodist  v.  Janues,  ;i  Johns.  Ch.  77.  86-114  ;  8  Am.  Dec.  447.  See 
Norman,  6  Bush,  4!».i ;  Alljin  v.  Lord,  39  N.  K.  196;  ante  A  i'^  i  post, 

I'm. 

40  Barron,  24' Vt.  375,  398  ;  ante,  §?  38,  42. 

I  294.  Bsstraints  oil  alienation  and  anticipation.  —  The 
power  to  di.siiose  of  property  ^  and  the  liability  thereof 
for  debts  -  belong  to  ownership,  and  clauses  In  convey- 
ances of  ownership  providing  otlierwise  are  void.^  But 
such  clauses  in  settlements  to  the  separate  use  of  mar- 
ried women,  so  long  as  they  do  not  infringe  on  the  rule 
against  perpetuities,*  are  valid,^  though  this  was  at  one 
tijne  denied,*^  and  are  enforced  in  equity^  as  an  addi- 
tional protection  to  tlie  wife,*  althougli  she  be  thus  as- 
sisted in  committing  a  fraud.^  The  settlor  may  limit 
her  powers,  or  altogether  take  them  away.^"  It  is  not 
neces.sary  that  the  settlement  contain  technical  words,ii 
but  only  that  the  settlor's  intent  to  prevent  anticipation 
or  alienation  clearly  apjiear^^  somewhere  in  the  set- 
tlement.^3  A  more  provision  that  the  property  shall  be 
for  her  sole  and  sepai^ate  use,^*  or  paid  to  her  from  time 
to  time^'^  on  her  receipt i^  or  personal  appearance,'^  or 
exempt  from  her  husband's  debts,!^  are  not  restraints 
upon  her  i^owers  of  dominion  and  control. '^  But  it  is 
a  valid  restraint  if  her  powers  are  to  be  exercised  "  so 
as  in  no  way  to  deprive  herself  of  the  benefit  thereof 
by  way  of  anticipation,"  "•  or  "  without  power  of  an- 
ticipation," ^i  or  "she  shall  not  sell,  mortgage,  charge, 
or  encumber,"^  or  "inalienable,"'^  or  "unassign- 
able "  ;  ^'  so  the  restraint  may  be  implied,^  as  when 
powers  inconsistent  with  her  power  to  alienate  are 
given  to  her  trustees,^^  or  the  property  is  settled  on  her 
"for  a  home,""'  or  she  is  to  receive  the  rents,  etc., 
"  only  as  they  become  due,"  ^^  or  the  property  is  to  be 
for  her  special  use  and  remain  in  her  possession  dur- 
ing her  life  and  on  her  death  to  go  to  her  children*  and 


I  204  wife's  equitable  estate,  292 

for  "  no  other  use  whatever."  29  Whether  an  enumera- 
tion of  certain  i^owers  is  impliedly  a  denial  of  all 
others  and  is  so  far  a  restraint  is  much  disputed.^o  On 
the  one  hand  it  is  said  that  it  is,^^  on  the  jirinciple  ex- 
pressio'unius  est  6xcllisio  altcrius,^^  and  therefore  that  a 
power  to  will  excludes  a  power  to  convey,'^  and  vice 
versa,^*  .md.  that  a  power  to  will  in  a  certain  mode  ex- 
cludes a  power  to  will  in  any  other  ;  ^^  though  it  is  ad- 
mitted that  a  poM'er  to  dispose  of  alasolutely  includes  a 
power  to  encumber  or  charge.^^  On  the  other  hand, 
while  it  \.i  admitted  that  if  the  settlement  carries  only 
a  life  estate  with  a  certain  power,  as,  for  example,  to 
will,^'  other  powers,  for  cxamiile,  to  deed,^*  do  not 
exist,^  yet  it  hi  maintained  that  when  an  absolute  es- 
tate is  granted,  the  cnumeratic^n  of  powers  simply  en- 
larges and  does  not  limit  the  grant.^"  The  restraint  is 
valid  whether  annexed  to  a  settlement  of  realty  or  of 
personalty,*!  of  an  absolute  or  of  a  life  estate  ;*"'^  and  it 
apiilies  generally  though  annexed  to  a  power.**  It 
cannoL  be  discharged  during  coverture**  even  for  the 
wife's  benefit.**  But  it  cannot  exist  apart  from  a  sepa- 
rate estate,*^  and  while  it  is  Aalid  though  made  on 
an  unmarried  womap,*®  it  takes  effect  only  on  her 
marriage,*^  before  which  time  she  may  exei'cise  the 
powers  of  a  femme  sole;*^  so  it  ceases  on  her  hus- 
band's death ;»"  but  it  revives  on  a  second  marriage,*' 
Unless  clearly  confined  to  a  particular  coverture.*-* 
Property  which  she  cannot  alienate  is  not  liable  for 
her  debts.**  When  there  is  a  provision  that  she  shall 
not  liib'rtgage  her  mortgage  is  void.**  But  a  restraint 
on  anticipating  income  does  not  affect  her  right  to  dis- 
pose of  principal  subject  to  the  payment  of  said  in- 
come.** Nor  does  a  restraint  on  disposition  prevent 
her  enlarging  her  estate  from  a  fee  tail  to  a  fee.*^  A 
restraint  on  anticiiiation  does  not  affect  her  rights  over 


293  wife's  equitable  estate.  §  204 

accrued  income,^^  but  it  must  be  actually  due  before 
she  can  assign  it,  etc. ;  '^  nor  if  her  husband  lias  collected 
it  will  he  be  liable^*  otherwise  than  in  other  cases ;^° 
nor  does  it  j)revenc  her  giving  an  order  for  future  in- 
come revocable  at  pleasure  ;^i  nor  does  it  prevent  her 
adjustment  of  tlie  amount  of  tlie  principal  witli  trust- 
ees ;  ^'^  nor  does  not  prevent  an  advantageous  lease ;  ^ 
but  compensation  for  a  breach  of  trust  cannot  be  en- 
forced against  a  fund  limited  by  the  same  instrument 
to  her  separate  use  without  power  of  anticipation.^'  It 
seems  that  there  will  be  no  implication  of  restraint 
against  the  exercise  by  the  wife  of  powers  which  she 
has  over  her  ordinary  jiroperty  by  the  common  law,*^ 
or  by  statute.^^ 

1  Jackson  v.  Methodist,  17  Johns.  Ch.  548,  578,  535  ;  ante,  |  203. 

2  Curnett  v.  Hawpe,  25  Gratt.  4S1,  436  ;  j'ost,  U  206,  207. 

3  De  Ppyster  v.  Jlichael,  6  X.  Y.  407,  4')3.  See  McCleary  v.  Ellis, 
51  Iowa,  311 ;  37  Am.  Kep.  205 ;  Maudlebaum  v.  McDonnell,  2J  Mich. 
-.i ;  18  Am.  Rep.  61. 

4  Buckton  v.  Hay,  27  Week.  R.  527, 528 ;  Fry  v.  Capper,  Kay,  163  ; 
Annitage  ?'.  Coates,  ;;5  Boav.  1;  Cunyngham,  L,aw  R.  11  Eq.  324; 
Teagues,  Law  R.  10  Eq.  504  ;  4  Kent  Com.  267  ;  Peachy  Mar.  Sett.  123. 

5  Tullett  1'.  Armstrong,  1  Beav.  1 ;  4  Mylne  &  C.  377,  303  ;  Hulme 
%).  Tenant,  1  Bro.  Ch.  10  ;  I'vbus  v.  Smith,  3  Bro.  Ch.  340,  346  ;  Bagget 
V.  Meux,  1  Colly.  C.  C.  IW,  147, 148  ;  Field  v.  Evans,  15  Sim.  372  ;  Rovvlev 
v.  Unwin,  2Kay  &  J.  138,  142;  Brettle,2  DeGex,  J.  &  S.  79,  82  ;  Kenrick 
V.  Wood,  Law  R.  9  Eq.  :«3,  337 ;  Arnolds  v.  Woodhams,  Law  R.  16  Eq. 
2!),  33 ;  Wilton  v.  Hill,  25  N.  J.  Eq.  156,  15S  ;  Cooper  v.  Macdonald,  Law 
R.  7  Ch.  D.  2S8,  2;)4 ;  Buckton  v.  Hav,  27  Week.  R.  527,  558  ;  Pike  v. 
Fitzgibbon,  29  Week.  R.  .551,  552;  Molyneu.x,  6  I.  R.  Eq.  411,  410; 
Hooks,  62  Ala.  258,  261;  Wilburn  v.  McCalley,  63  Ala.  4:*,  417;  \\i\- 
liams  V.  Maul,  20  Ala.  721,  TZi ;  Fears  %'.  Brooks,  12  Ga.  11)5.  200 ;  Free- 
man V.  Flood,  16  Ga.  528.  534  ;  Parker  v.  Converse,  5  Gray,  336,  338 ; 
Gully  V.  Hull,  31  Miss.  20,  30;  Jaques  v.  Methodist,  3  Johns.  Ch.  77, 
113,  114  ;  8  Am.  Doc.  447  ;  Wells  v.  McCall,  64  Pa.  St.  207,  213  ;  Witscll 
V.  Charleston,  7  S.  C.  88,  104  ;  Greensboro  v.  Chambers,  .30  Gratt.  202, 
209  ;  Burnett  v.  Hawpi',  25  Gratt.  431, 486  ;  Nixon  v.  Rose,  12  Gratt.  431 ; 
Radford  v.  Carwile,  13  W.  Va.  572,  577,  682. 

6  Jackson  v.  Hobhouse,  2  Mer.  482. 487  ;  Wells  v.  MeCall,  64  Pa.  St. 
207,  213,  214. 

7  Buckton  v.  Hay,  27  Week.  R.  .527  ;  post,  §  210. 

8  Jodrell,  9  Beav.  45, 5;i;  Tullett  t'.  Armstrong,  4  Mylne  &  C.  377, 393. 

9  Arnolds  v.  Woodhams,  Law  R.  10  Eq.  29,  33.    See  post,  ?  424. 

10  Tullett  V.  Armstrong,  1  Beav.  1,  .14. 

11  Ross,  1  Sim.  N  R  196, 199 ;  Fears  v.  Brooks,  12  Ga.  195,  200,  201 ; 
Greensboro  i'.  Chambers,  30  Gratt.  202,  210. 


§  204  wife's  equitable  estate.  294 

12  Pvbus  V.  Smith,  a  Bro.  Ch.  »40,  34R  ;  Moore,  1  Colly.  C.  C.  54,  fl7  ; 
Doolan  v.  Blake,  3  Ir.  Ch.  N.  8.  340,  349-351  ;  Freeman  v.  Flood,  16  Ga. 
523,  534. 

13  Doolan  v.  Blake,  3  Ir.  Ch.  N.  S.  340,  34R ;  Fears  v.  Brooks,  12 
Ga.  195,  201. 

14  Pvbus  V.  Smith,  3  Bro.  Ch.  340,  346  ;  1  Ves.  Jr.  189  ;  Hulme  v. 
Tenant,  1  Liro.  Ch.  16. 

15  Cooke  V.  Husbands,  11  Mrt.  492,  50S. 

10  Ellis  )'.  Atkinson,  3  Bro.  Ch.  565,  568  ;  Browne  v.  Like,  14  Ves. 

302  ;  Sturgis  v.  Corp,  13  Ves.  190  ;  Scott  v.  Davis,  4  M.vlne  &  C.  87. 

17  Ross,  1  Sim.  N.  R.  196, 199. 

18  Witsell  V.  Chai;«ston,  7  S.  C.  88, 104. 

19  Parker  v.  White,  11  Ves.  222  ;  ante,  i  203. 

20  Cooper  v.  Macdonald,  Law  R.  7  Ch.  D.  233,  294  ;  Peachy  Mar. 
Sett.  867,  868. 

21  Doolan  v.  Blake,  3  Jr.  Ch.  N.  S.  340.  349 ;  Brown  v.  Bamford,  11 
Sim.  131. 

22  Bagget  v.  Meux,  1  Colly.  C.  C.  138, 147, 148. 

23  D'Oechsner  v.  Scott,  24  Beav.  239  ;  Spring  v.  Pride,  10  Jur.  N.  S. 
876. 

24  Rennie  v.  Ritchie,  12  Clark  &  F.  204. 

25  Doolan  v.  Blake,  3  Ir.  Ch.  N.  S.  340,  349-351 ;  Parker  v.  Con- 
verse, 5  Gray,  336,  338. 

26  Fears  v.  Brooks,  12  Ga.  196,  201 ;  Gully  v.  Hull,  31  Miss.  20,  30. 

27  Greensboro  v.  Chambers,  30  Gratt.  202,  209. 

28  Doolan  v.  Blake,  3  Ir.  Ch.  N.  S.  340,  350 ;  Field  v.  Evans,  15 
Sim.  375 ;  Baker  v.  Bradley,  7  DeGex  M.  &  G.  697  ;  Jaques  v.  Method 
ist,  3  Johns.  Ch.  77, 113, 114  ;  8  Am.  Dec.  447. 

29  Freeman  v.  Flood,  16  Ga.  528,  534. 

30  Radford  v.  Carwile,  13  W.  Va.  577,  530,  597,  G53,  GTA,  682. 

31  Cooke  r.  Husbands,  11  Md.  492,  503.  S.  P.  Worsnop  v.  Benassl, 
21  Week.  R.  634,  636;  Whistler  r.  Newman,  4  Vos.  129,  138  ;  Weeks  v. 
Sego,  9  Ga.  199.  203;  Swift  v.  Castle,  2:!  Ill  2(w,  21«,  222  ;  Armstrong  v. 
Kerns,  12  Md.  L.  Rec.  28,  March  22,  ls»4  ;  IMilh-r  v.  Williamson,  5  Md. 
219,  235;  Bcnesch  v.  Clark,  49  Md.  477,5114;  Lowrv  v.  Williamson,  2 
Har.  efe  G.  34,  40  ;  Leavcraft  v.  Redden,  4  N.  J.  Kq.  512,  o-V) ;  Methodist 
V.  Jaqnes,  3  Johns.  Ch.  77,  113;  8  Am.  Dec.  447;  Hardv  v.  Hollv,  84 
N.  C.  bUl,  666 ;  Lightfoot  v.  Boss,  8  Lea,  3.50,  351,  .^52  ;  Morgan  v.  Elam, 
8  Yerg.  375 ;  Williamson  v.  Beckham,  8  Leigh,  20,  27 ;  Nixon  v.  Rose, 
12  Gratt.  425,431,432  ;  all  cases  which  limit  authority  to  power  given, 
cited  ante,  ?  203. 

32  Weeks  v.  Sego,  9  Ga.  199,  203,  204. 

33  Lowry  v.  Williamson,  2  liar.  &  G.  34,  40 ;  Benesch  v.  Clark,  49 
Md.  497,  504  ;  post,  i  20.5. 

34  Methodist  v.  Jaques,  3  Johns.  Ch.  77, 113  ;  8  Am.  Dec.  447  ;  post, 
?  208. 

35  Weeks  v.  Sego,  9  Ga.  199,  203 ;  post,  ?  208. 

36  Jackson  v.  West,  22  Md.  71,  83  ;  Hall  v.  Eccleston,  37  Md.  510,520. 

37  See  Leigh  v.  Bank,  9  Leigh,  203,  203,  209,  213  ;  post,  i  208. 

38  Williamson  v.  Beckham,  8  Leigh,  20,  25  ;  post,  J  205. 


295  wife's  equitable  estate.  §  204 

39  Bradley  v.  Westcott,  13  Ves.  445;  Anderson  it.  Dawson,  15  Ves. 
532  ;  Archibald  v.  Wright,  7  Law  J.  Ch.  121  ;  Doe  v.  Thorlev,  10  East, 
438  ;  Sockett  V.  Way,  4  Bro.  Ch.  4S3;  JVloore,  1  Colly.  C.  C.  84;  Holloway 
V.  Clarksoii,  2  Hare,  5J1  ;  Harrup  v.  Howard,  3  Hare,  624  ;  Medley  v. 
Horton,  14  Sim.  222. 

40  Radford  v.  Carwile,  13  W.  Va.'577,  590,  .5)7,  682.  S.  P.  Taylor  v. 
Meads,  :i4  Law  J.  Ch.  2ii3  ;  Hooks  v.  Brown,  02  Ala.  2.58.  261 ;  Barford 
?'.  Street,  16  Ves.  135;  Ilixon  v.  Oliver,  13  Ves.  108;  Kiinm  r.  Weip- 
pert.  46  Mo.  532,  536  ;  2  Am.  Rep.  541 ;  Methodist  v.  Jaques,  17  Johns. 
Ch.  548,  580,  585  ;  8  Am.  Dec.  447  ;  Lee  v.  Bank,  9  Leigh,  203,  208. 

41  Bagget  v.  Meux,  1  Phill.  Ch.  627,  628  ;  1  Colly.  C.  C.  138. 

42  Gaffee,  14  Jur.  277 ;  Bagget  v.  Meux,  1  Phill.  Ch.  627.  628. 

43  Moore,  1  Colly.  C.  C.  51,  .58 ;  Harrup  v.  Howard,  3  Hare,  624  ;  Har- 
nett V.  McDougall,  8  Beav.  127  ;  Field  v.  Evans,  15  Sim.  375;  Baker  v. 
Bradley,  7  DeGex.  M.  &  G.  5U7;  Loring  v.  Salisbury,  125  Mass.  138; 
Kent  V.  Plumb,  57  Ga.  207. 

44  Robinson  v.  W^heelwright,  21  Beav.  214  c  ;  Keane,  12  Law  R.  Eq. 
115  ;  Wilton  v.  Hill,  25  Law  J.  Ch.  156  ;  Derbishire  v.  Home,  3  De 
Gex,  M.  &  G.  113. 

45  Robinson  v.  Wheelwright,  6  DeGex,  M.  &  G.  535  ;  21  Beav.  214. 

46  Tullett  V.  Armstrong,  4  Mylne  &  C.  377,  304  ;  Jones  v.  Salter,  2 
Russ.  &  M.  208. 

47  Molyneux,  6  Ir.  R.  Eq.  411,  416;  Fe.-.rs  v.  Brooks,  12  Ga.  195, 
200.  But  see  Wells  v.  McCall,  64  Pa.  St.  207,  213.  Consult  ante,  M  198, 
201. 

48  Molyneux,  6  Ir.  R.  Eq.  411,  416. 

49  Tullett  V.  Armstrong,  4  Mylne  &  C.  377,  391. 

50  Molyneux,  6  Ir.  R.  Eq.  4U,  416;  Tullett  v.  Armstrong,  4 
Mylne  &  C.  377,  395  ;  Jones  v.  Salter,  2  Kuss.  &  M.  208,  210  ;  Massey  v. 
Parker,  2  Mylne  &  K.  189  ;  post,  i  314. 

51  Tullett  V.  Armstrong,  4  Mylne  &  C.  387,  399,  405  ;  Strathmore  v. 
Bowers,  1  Ves.  Jr.  27  ;  Clayton  v.  Gresham,  10  Ves.  287;  Sanger,  Law 
R.  11  Eq.  470  ;  Anderson,  2  Mylne  &  K.  427  ;  Ellis,  Law  R.  17  Eq.  409. 
Contra,  Wells  v.  McCall,  64  Pa.  St.  207,  214. 

52  Knight,  6  Sim.  121 ;  Benson,  6  Sim.  120. 

53  Pike  V.  Fltzgibbon,  29  Week.  R.  551,  552  ;  Radford  v.  Carwile,  13 
W.  Va.  573,662,  et  seq.  .•  post,  U  200,  207. 

.51  Bagget  V.  Meux,  1  Colles,  138, 147, 148. 

55  Cooper  v.  Macdonald,  Law  R.  7  Ch.  D.  288,  293,  234. 

56  Cooper  V.  Macdonald,  Law  R.  7  Ch.  D.  288,  294. 

57  Rowley  ?>.  XJnwin,  2  Kay  &  J.  138, 142. 

58  Brettle,  2  DeGex,  J.  <fe  S.  79,  82  ;  JoUands  v.  Burdett,  10  Jur. 
N.  S.  349. 

59  Rowley  v.  Unwin,  2  Kay  &  J.  138, 142  ;  jiost,  ??  209,  212. 

60  That  is,  if  he  collects  it  onlv  as  agent  or  trustee  he  is  liable: 
Ante,  a  42,  84-83,  202  ;  post,  H  20J,  212. 

61  Moore,  1  Colly.  C.  C.  54,  57. 

62  Wilton  V.  Hill,  25<Law  J.  Eq.  166, 158  ;  Derbishire  v.  Home,  5  De 
Gex,  M.  &  G.  113. 

63  Vandervoort  v.  Gould,  36  N.  Y.  639. 

64  Clive  V.  Carew,  1  Johns.  &  H.  199;  Sheriff  r.  Butler,  12  Jur.  N.  S. 
32J  ;  Davis  v.  Hodgson,  25  Beav,  186. 


§  205  wife's  equitable  estate.  296 

65  YounsT,  7  Cold.  461,  477,  480,  4S2  ;  Lightfoot  v.  Boss,  8  Lea,  350,  351. 
Contra,  Wright  v.  Brown,  44  Pa.  St.  224,  241 ;  Gray  v.  Eobb,  4  Heisk. 
74,  77. 

66  Young,  7  Cold.  461,  479  ;  post,  i  216. 


§  205.  Wife's  conveyances  of  hor  equitable  separate 
estate. — The  right  of  disposition — Jusdisponendi — is  an 
ordinary  incident  of  ownership,^  of  property  real,^  as 
well  a.s  personal,*  and  most  of  the  States  have  applied 
this  rule  to  a  married  woman's  equitable  sepai-ate  estate 
when  the  settlement  does  not  restrain  her  powers  of 
disposition;*  still,  other  States  have  denied  the  wife's 
right  of  disposition  unless  and  excejit  so  far  as  given 
by  the  settlement.^  When  she  can  convey  there  is  in 
general*  no  need  of  the  joinder  of  her  husband,'  or 
trustee,*  or  of  complying  with  married  women  acts;'' 
she  can  convey  to  her  husband  as  Avell  as  to  a  stranger,'" 
and  by  way  of  mortgage, '^  or  absolutely ; '■'  and  the 
consideration  may  go  to  her  hu.sband  or  to  herself.'* 

1.  What  is  a  o-estraint  or  alienation.  Her  right  of 
disposition  may  be  restrained  by  express  words  or  by 
implication,'^  tlie  main  dispute  being  as  to  whether  the 
enumeration  of  certain  powers  excludes  all  others'^  — 
whether,  for  example,  giving  her  the  power  to  will 
denies  her  the  power  to  deed.'* 

2.  Conveyances  under  powers.  In  some  States  a  mar- 
ried woman  can  dispose  of  her  equitable  separate  estate 
only  under  a  power  ; "  she  merely  executes  a  delegated 
authority, '8  and  her  grantee  takes  under  the  original 
settlement.'"  A  general  power  to  "dispose"  includes 
all  modes  of  alienation, ^o  and  a  power  to  convey  in- 
cludes a  power  to  mortgage.'''  In  executing  her  power 
she  acts  as  a  femme  sole.'^  No  joinder  of  husband  ^^  or 
trustee, 2^  and  no  privy  examination, ^^s  necessarj-.  Still 
the  joinder  of  the  husband  Avill  do  no  harm,2B  unless  it 
appears  that  she  was  not  acting  under  the  powerj^?  and 


297  wife's  equitable  estate.  ^  235 

the  power  inaj'  be  so  given  as  to  require  privy  examin- 
ation.^^  If  tlie  act  is  witliin  the  scope  of  the  power,  it  is 
a  good  execution,  though  there  be  no  reference  to  the 
power.^  Still,  in  general,  the  power  should  be  referred 
to,*"  or  the  intent  to  execute  it  should  otherwise  ap- 
pear,^' and  this  intent  will  be  presumed  only  if  the  act 
Avould  otherwise  be  meaningless,*^  and  no  other  sup- 
posed authority  is  referred  to.**  Substantial  compliance 
with  the  terms  of  the  power  is  sufficient,**  and  an  im- 
perfect execution  maybe  rectified  in  equity, *5  —  private 
or  conventional  powers  thus  dllTering  from  statutory 
powers.*^  The  rules  apply  to  botli  realty  and  person- 
alty,*' and  private  powers  may  exist  alongside  of  stat- 
utory ones.*^ 

3.  Conveyances  wider  natural  Jus  disponendi.  Though 
the  right  to  dispose  of  it  is  peculiarly  an  incident  of 
ownership  of  personalty,*^  this  right  may  bo  restrained 
by  the  settlement;*"  otherwise  the  wife  may  convey  ii 
away  as  if  unmarried.'^  This  applies  equally  to  accu- 
mulations,*^  to  personalty  in  possession  or  in  rever- 
sion,** and  to  the  rents  and  profits  of  real  estate."  But 
it  is  in  some  States  held  that  the  wife's  right  of  disposi- 
tion does  not  apply  to  the  corpus  of  her  realty, *5  and 
that  she  can  dispose  of  that  only  as  a  married  woman, ^^ 
by  fine  and  recovery  as  at  common  law,*'  or  under 
statutes  allowing  her  to  convey  her  general  real  es- 
tate,*8  or  under  a  power.*"  Still,  the  general  rule  is 
that  she  can  dispose  of  the  corpus  of  her  realty  as  well 
as  of  the  rents  and  i^rofits,  unless  restrained  by  the 
settlement  ;^"  and  her  husband  need  not  johi.^i 

1  Amorican  v.  \Vadharas,  10  Barb.  557,  fiOl ;  Lee  v.  Baiilv,  !)  Leigh, 
203,  206  ;  ante,  J  203. 

2  Taylor  v.  Meads,  4  DeGex,  J.  *  S.  517,  607  ;  Jaqu?.s  r.  Mf  thoclist, 
17  Johns.  Ch.  548,  578,  585  ;  8  Am.  Dec.  447  ;  infra,  n.  45. 

3  Fettiplace  v.  Gorges,  3  Bro.  Ch.  8 ;  1  Ves.  Jr.  4fi  ;  .\aierican  r\ 
Wadhams,  10  Barb.  5;i7,  601 ;  infra,  n.  39. 


§  205  wife's  equitable  estate.  298 

4  Taylor  v.  Mead,  4  DeGex,  J.  &  S.  597,  607 ;  Chew  v.  Beall,  13  Md. 
»48,  360  ;  Finch  v.  Marks,  76  Va.  207,  209 ;  ante,  U  203,  204. 

5  Keed  v.  Lamar,  1  Strob.  Eq.  27,  37  ;  ante,  i  203. 

fi  Aliter  in  particular  cases,  such  as  Richardson  v.  Pulver,  63  Barb. 
67,  72. 

7  Thompson  v.  Murray,  2  Hill  Ch.  204,  211 ;  29  Am.  Dec.  68  ;  infra, 
notes  23,  51  ;  post,  I  212. 

8  Trippe  v.  John,  15  Ala.  117, 124 ;  infra,  n.  24  ;  ante,  5  202. 

9  Sherman  v.  Turpin.  7  Cold.  382,  384.    See  post,  H  394-408. 

10  Booker.  32  Ala.  473,  478.  See  Hearle  v.  Greenbank,  1  Ves.  Sr. 
298  ;  Pavvlet  v.  Delaval,  2  Ves.  Sr.  173  ;  Sperling  v.  Roehford,  8  Ves. 
164,  183  ;  Essex  v.  A'kiris,  14  Ves.  .M2  ;  Wood,  Law  R.  10  Eq.  220  :  ante, 
Hi 

11  Jones  V.  Reese,  65  Ala.  134, 141  ;  Price  i'.  Big-ham,  7  Har.  <fe  J.  296, 
318  ;  Jackson  r.  AVest,  22  Md.  71,  83  ;  Hall  v.  Ecclestoii,  37  Md.  510,  520  ; 
American  v.  Wadhams,  10  Barb.  .')97,  fiOJ  ;  Maurer,  S6  Pa.  St.  380,  385 ; 
Porcher  v.  Daniel,  12  Rich.  Eq.  319,  359 ;  Bain  v.  Buff,  70  Va.  371,  374. 

12  Porcher  ?>.  Daniel,  12  Rich.  Eq.  349,  359  ;  Radford  v.  Carwile,  13 
W.  Va.  573,  669. 

13  Ferdon  v.  Miller,  31  N.  J.  Eq.  10,  notes  ;  ante,  ?  134. 

14  Doolan  v.  Blake,  3  Ir.  Ch.  N.  S.  310,  349  ;  ante,  J  204. 

15  Pro.  Cooke  v.  Husbands,  11  Md.  492,  503.  Contra,  Radford  v. 
Carwile,  13  W.  Va.  573,  590,  597,  632.     Discussed  ante,  I  204. 

16  Benesch  v.  Clark,  49  Md.  497,  504 ;  ante,  i  204 

17  Lyne  v.  Crouse,  1  Pa.  St.  Ill,  115 ;  ante,  I  203. 

18  Porcher  v.  Daniel,  12  Rich.  Eq.  349,  357. 

19  Leigh  V.  Smith,  3  Ired.  Eq.  442, 446  ;  42  Am.  Dec.  182. 

20  American  v.  Wadhams,  10  Barb.  597,  604  ;  Porcher  v.  Daniel,  12 
Rich.  Eq.  .319,  357. 

21  Price  v.  Bigham,  7  Har.  &  J.  296,  318  ;  supra,  n.  11. 

22  Armstrong  v.  Kerns,  Md.  L.  Rec.  Mar.  22,  1884,  Ct.  App.  Oct.  '83. 
See  Vanghan  v.  Vanderstegen,  2  Drew.  165, 185  ;  Heath  v.  Withington, 
6  Cush.  497,  50C  ;  1  Sugden  Pow.  181,  Vt-i. 

23  Thompson  v.  Murray,  2  Hill  Ch.  204,  211 ;  4  Kent  Com.  324 ;  2 
Bish.  M.  \V.  H89  ;  1  Sugden  Pow.  181,  1S.3. 

24  Burnett  v.  Hawpe,  25  Gratt.  481,  487  ;  2  Story  Eq.  Juris,  i  1390  ;  2 
Bish.  M.  W.  I  \M ;  ante,  §  202.  e  . 

25  .Sherman  v.  Turpin,  7  Cold.  382,  384. 

26  Witts  V.  Dawkins,  12  Ves.  501,  502. 

27  Myers  v.  McBride,  13  Rich.  178, 190. 
23    Richardson  v.  Pulver,  63  Barb.  67,  72. 

29  Coryell  v.  Dunton,  7  Pa.  St.  530,  532  ;  49  Am.  Dec.  489. 

30  Vaughan  v.  Vanderstegen,  2  Drew.  165,  189  ;  infra,  n.  31. 

31  Da\is  V.  Vincent,  1  Houst.  416,  426  ;  White  v.  Hicks,  .33  N  Y  383, 
^'' '  ■l^.^^l^  ";„?chwartz,  47  Pa.  St.  503, 508  ;  Porcher  v.  Daniel,  12  Rich. 
Eq.  349,  .368  ;  Thorndike  v.  Reynolds,  22  Gratt.  21,  32. 

-J''  of^^S-""."***^'  "•  I'ilJben,  9  Sim.  447,  note ;  Porcher  v.  Daniel,  12  Rich. 
Eq.  349,  .i51. 

33    See  Myers  v.  McBride,  13  Rich.  178,  190. 


i 


299  wife's  equitable  estate.  I  205 

»1    Eovve  V.  Beckett,  30  Ind.  154, 163 

35  Wright  J'.  Englefleld,  Arab.  46S,  473  ;  EUet  v.  Wade,  47  Ala.  45fi, 
464  ;  Clayton  v.  Frazier,  33  Tex.  91,  100. 

36  Trustee  r.  Bavlson,  65  111.  124,  126  ;  Lindley  v.  Smith,  46  111.  523  ; 
Heaton  v.  Trybergtr,  38  Iowh,  1S5,  I'M;  O'Ferrall  r.  Simplot, 4 Greene, 
162  ;  4  Iowa,  .iSl ;  Wills  v.  Gattman,  53  Mi.ss.  711,  73.'  ;  Sillimaii  v.  Cuni- 
mings,  13  Ohio,  116.  118.  Compare  Kilbouni  i\  Furv,  26  Ohio  St.  153, 
160;  Clayton  v.  Frazier,  33  Tex.  1)1,  100.    See  poet,  U  404,  407. 

37  Guise  v.  Small,  1  Anstr.  277,  27S ;  Warren  v.  Postelthwaite,  2 
Colly.  C.  C.  lOS,  lis  ;  Newburyport  v.  Stoue,  13  Pick.  420,  42J ;  Ameri- 
can V.  Wadhams,  10  Barb.  5J7,  606. 

.38  Armstrong  w  Kerns,  Md.  L.  Bee.  Mar.  22,  iaS4,  63  Jld.  ^ ;  post, 
J216. 

31  Navlor  v.  Field,  20  N.  J.  L.  237,  2S.S.  But  see  Moore  v.  Cornell,  78 
Pa.  St.  320. 

40  Fettiplace  v.  Gorges,  3  Bro.  Ch.  9, 10  ;  cases  infra,  n.  41 ;  ante,  i  204. 

41  Fettiplace  v.  Gorges,  1  Ve.s.  Jr.  4S  ;  3  Bro.  Ch.  fl,  10  ;  Bank  v. 
Lempriere,  Luw  J.  4  P.  C.  572  ;  Pride  v.  Bobb.  Law  R.  7  Ch.  App.  64  ; 
Noble  v.  Whillock,  Law  R.  8  Ch.  App.  778  ;  Hulme  v.  Tenant,  1  Bro. 
Ch.  16;  Hanchet  I'.  Briscoe,  22  Beav.  436  ;  Bestall  >:  Beraberry,  13  Ir. 
Ch.  549  ;  Hearle  1'.  Greenbank,3Atk.  70);  1  Vcs,  Sr.  2(8, :««  ;  Pomeroy 
V.  Manhattan,  40  111.  3;)8;  Harding  >:  Cobb,  47  Mi.ss.  5)'.), (id:! ;  Dibnell  v. 
Carlisle,  48  Miss.  6i)l  ;  Naylor  v.  Field,  2u  N.  J.  L.  2i7,  288  ;  Green  it. 
Ballas.  13  N.  J.  Eq.  267 ;  Lee  v.  Bank,  0  Lee,  2U5,  207  ;  Penn  v.  White- 
head, 17  Gratt.  503. 

42  Gold  V.  Rutland,  1  Eq.  Ca.  Abr.  .346  ;  Gore  v.  Knight,  2  Vern.  5.%'i ; 
Newland  v.  Paynter,  10  Sim.  377  ;  Humphrey  r.  Richards,  2  Jur.  N. 
S.  432. 

43  Sturgis  v.  Corp,  13  Ves.  190 ;  Ponne  v.  Hart,  2  Russ.  <&  M.  355, 
360  ;  Headen  v.  Rasher,  McClel.  &  Y.  8J. 

44  Ch^ever  v.  Wilson,  9  Wall.  108,  119;  McChesnev  r.  Brown,  25 
Gratt.  393,  404.  See  Hulme  v.  Tenant,  1  Bro.  Ch.  16  ;  1  White  &  T. 
Lead.  Cas.  481,  4th  Am.  ed.  679  ;  post,  i  209. 

45  Radford  v.  Carwile.  13  W.  Va.  573,  661.  S.  P.  Armstrong  v.  Ross, 
2)  N.  J.  Eq.  10),  117  ;  Naylor  v.  Field,  29  N.  J.  L.  287,  289 ;  McChesney 
V.  Brown,  2.j  Gratt.  393,  404;  Hawley  t'.  Troyman,  29  Gratt.  728,  729. 
So  formerly  in  England:  Peacock  r.  Monk,  2  Ves.  Jr.  190;  Doe  v. 
Scott,  4  Bing.  505  ;  Moore  v.  Morris,  4  Brew.  38  ;  Harris  r.  Mott,  14 
Beav.  169  ;  Churchill  v.  Debben,  2  Keny.  (II.  Pt.)  63,  84.  Soe  1  Bish. 
M.  W.  5  851,  note. 

46  Young,  7  Cold.  461,  477 ;  tnfra,  notes  47-49 ;  post,  U  334-103. 

47  Dillon  V.  Grace,  2  Schoales  &  L.  456,  462-464 ;  Wright  r.  Cadogan, 
2  Eden,  239,  257-259. 

48  Taylor  v.  Meads,  4  DeGex,  J.  A  S.  597,  607  ;  Young,  7  Cold.  461, 
479  ;  Lightfoot  v.  Bess,  8  Lea,  3.50,  351 ;  Radford  v.  Carwile,  13  W.  Va, 
573,  669. 

43  McChesney  v.  Brown,  25  Gratt.  393,  404  ;  Radford  v.  Carwile,  13 
W.  Va.  573,  670  ;  sujyra,  notes  17-38. 

50  Appleton  v.  Rawlev,  Law  R.  8  Eq.  139, 142  ;  Taylor  v.  Meads,  34 
Law  J.  N.  S.  Ch.  203,  207  ;  Trontbeck  v.  Boughev,  Law  R.  3  Eq.  .534, 
537;  Hodsden  v.  Staple,  2  Term  R.  6S4,  695  ;  Parkes  v.  White,  11  Ves. 
209,  220  ;  Chew  v.  Beall,  13  Md.  348,  360  ;  Bradish  v.  Gibbs,  3  Johns.  Ch. 
523,  539-541. 

51  Moore  v.  Webster,  Law  R.  3  Eq.  267,  369 ;  American  v.  Wadhams. 
10  Barb.  697,  602  ;  su2}ra,  n.  9. 


§  208  wife's  equitable  estate.  300 

\  2D6.  Wife's  contracts  concerning  her  equitable  separate 
estato.  — Independently  of  statute,  a  married  woman 
has  generally  no  capacity  to  make  a  contract ; '  her 
promises,  deeds,  etc.,  are  absolutely  void,^  even  in 
courts  of  equity.^  But  her  contracts  relating  to  her 
estate  may  be  so  made  as  to  be  sustainable  in  equity 
against  her  equitable  separate  estate*  (and  her  statu- 
tory separate  estate  as  Avell")  in  a  proceeding  in  rem.^ 
Thus,  her  contrivct  to  sell  her  equitable  seijarate  es- 
tate is  valid,^  and  even  if  not  enforcible  against  her 
specifically,  if  she  has  received  the  purchase  money 
the  property  is  liable  for  its  repayment ;  ^  and  a  con- 
tract, in  consideration  of  a  loan,  to  pay  it  back,  and  to 
give  a  mortgage  for  it  on  her  equitable  separate  es- 
tate, may  be  enforced  as  an  equitable  mortgage.^  That 
13  to  say,  any  contract  charging  her  equitable  separate 
property  for  the  payment  of  money  .may  be  enforced 
against  such  property,  and  such  contracts  may  be 
made  through  any  one,^"  including  her  husband,  as 
her  agent.ii  Though  a  married  woman's  capacity  to 
contract  witli  reference  to  her  equitable  separate  prop- 
erty has  always  been  recognized  to  some  extent,^^  tlie 
reasons  for  and  limits  of  this  capacity  are  not  clearly 
dotermined,^^  and  different  rules  relating  thereto  have 
prevailed  at  different  times  and  in  different  places.^* 
One  theory  has  been  that  her  contracts  are  enforcible 
against  her  projierty  as  equitable  appointments,  mort- 
gages, or  conveyances  thereof,'^  on  the  ground  that  her 
power  to  dispose  includes  a  power  to  encumber,!^  and 
that  private  i^owers  need  not  be  strictly  executed  to 
create  valid  ai5j>ointments.'^  Under  this  theory  only 
express  charges  would  be  enforcible, '^  and  no  oral 
charge  would  liave  any  effect  as  to  real  estate. ^^  Since, 
as  to  these  matters,  the  Aveight  of  the  law  is  otherwise, 
and  for  other  reasons,  this  theory  has  of  late  met  with 


301  wife's  equitable  estate.  §  206 

mucla  disfavor,™  though  it  is  the  only  one  possible 
where,  although  the  wife  has  only  such  powers  over 
her  estate  as  are  expressly  given  her,  such  estate  is 
held  liable  for  contracts  which  are  not  expressly  au- 
thorized,'-^i  Another  more  satisfactory  theory  has  been 
accepted  in  States  where  a  married  woman  is,  as  to  her 
equitable  separate  estate,  a  fcmmesole;-^  namely,  that 
it  is  an  incident  of  ownership  that  property  should  be 
liable  for  its  owner's  debts,^^  or  at  all  events  an  inci- 
dent of  the  Jus  disponendi,'^^  and  that  the  liability  of 
equitable  separate  property  for  her  debts  is  a  conse- 
quence of  the  fact  that  the  married  woman  is  in  equity 
absolute  owner  thereof.-^  There  are  some  rules  as  to 
tlie  liability  aforesaid  upon  wliich  tliore  seems  to  be 
some  general  agreement. 

1.  It  is  not  liable  unless  the  wife  has  the  jus  dis- 
ponendi.^^  Thus,  wlien  slie  has  only  a  life  estate  the 
reversion  is  not  liable ;  ^^  when  she  cannot  dispose  of 
tlie  corpus  of  her  land,  only  the  rents  and  profits  are 
liable  ;'^  and  when  she  cannot  dispose  of  it  at  all,'^  it  is 
not  liable  at  all.^" 

2.  It  is  not  liable  when  no  credit  is  given  to  it,^^  as 
when  the  credit  is  given  to  the  husband,"^  and  in  the 
case  of  household  expenses  the  credit  is  presumed  to 
have  been  given  to  the  liusband.^^ 

3.  It  is  not  liable  wlien  there  is  no  consideration; 
the  wife  is  not  estopped  in  equity  by  her  seal.^*  Still, 
usually,  the  consideration  need  not  benefit  her.^s 

4.  It  is  liable  if  expressly  cliargod,^^  as  to  this  all 
agree,^'  and  the  intention  need  not  be  expressed  in  the 
contract,^^  or  in  writing.'^ 

5.  It  is  liable  if  impliedly  charged.*"  The  intent  to 
charge  may,  except  in  Nortli  Carolina,*^  be  proved  by 
circumstantial  evidence.*'^  In  many  courts,  to  prevent 
the  implication  of  a  fraudulent  intent  in  the  married 

H.  &  W.  — 26. 


I    206  wipe's   EQUITABtiE   ESTATE.  302 

woman  at  the  time  she  contracted  her  debts  not  to  pay 
them,  the  law  raises  a  presumption  that  she  intended 
to  pay  them  in  the  only  way  possible,  namely,  out  of 
her  separate  property ;  ^  and  such  courts  hold  her 
property  prima  facie  liable  on  all  her  contracts,  on  the 
doctrine  of  implied  intent.*'  This  presumption  may 
bo  rebutted  by  showing  that  neither  j^arty  had  in  mind 
payment  out  ol  her  estate.*^  Very  rarely,  however,  is 
this  liability  said  to  be  independent  of  express  or  im- 
plied intent  to  charge,*^  as  it  is  in  Virginia. *'  Some 
courts  which  recognize  implied  charges  refuse  to  raise 
the  implication  from  the  mere  fact  of  coverture.*^ 

6.  It  is  liable  for  a  debt  incurred  for  its  preservation, 
or  for  some  purpose  connected  necessarily  with  its  full 
enjoyment.*^  Other  courts  have  extended  this  prin- 
ciple, and  hold  the  estate  liable  whenever  the  contract 
benefits  it  or  the  married  woman,^  on  the  ground,  it 
seems,  of  implied  intent.si  Others,  on  the  other  hand, 
do  not  hold  it  liable  even  for  improvements  on  it,  if 
there  is  no  express  or  implied  charge.^^  A  few  courts 
refuse  to  hold  it  liable  for  a  debt  not  for  its  benefit, 
even  on  a  charge.^^ 

7.  It  is  liable  on  contracts  in  relation  to  it,^'  or  on  the 
faith  and  credit  of  it.^ 

But  the  only  satisfactojy  way  of  determining  the  law 
in  each  particular  State  is  to  examine  the  decisions 
therein.58 

1  Discussed  fnWy,  post,  Coxtbacts  of  Married  Womkn,  {{  :«3, 
et  seq. 

2  Gebb  v.  Eose,  40  Md.  .W,  393 ;  post,  5  357. 

3-  Vaughan  v.  Vaiuierstegen,  2  Drew.  16.'),  18-1  ;  Miller  v.  Newton, 
23  Cal.  5.->4,  564  ;  Davis  v.  Smith,  75  Mo.  219,  224  ;  imst,  5  359. 

4  Hulme  v.  Tenant,  1  White  &  T.  Lead.  Cas.  481,  notes. 

5  Hall  II.  Ecoleston,  37  Md.  510,  520  ;  Radford  v.  Carwlle,  13  W.  Va, 
573,  661  ;  post,  J  2:54. 

6  Vaughan  v.  Vanderstcgen,  2  Drew.  165,  184;  Smith  v.  Gooch,  86 

N.  C.  276. 

7  &tead  v.  Nelson,  2  Beav.  245,  248  ;  post,  I  407. 


303  wife's  equitable  estate.  g  208 

S  Girault  v  Adams,  61  Md.  1,  V2, 13  ;  Sliuydi-r  v.  >'oble,  94  Pa.  St. 
236,  28;» ;  post,  §  407. 

9  Stead  i'.  Nelson.  2  Beav.  245,  24S  ;  Waiiiwright  v.  Hardistv,  2 
Beav.  36:{  365;  Hall  ?'.  Eccleston,  a?  Md.  .")]0,  5-0  ;  Cooke  i'.  Husbands, 
U  Md.  492,  .508. 

10  Garland,  1  Mackey,  436;  Taylor  r.  Shclton,  30  Conn.  122,  128; 
Wells  I'.  Thorman,  37  Conn.  318  ;  Crickniore  r.  llreckenridge,  51  Ind. 
2'.H,  2:17  ;  Girault  v.  Adams,  61  Md.  1,  U,  12 ;  MerrUl  !'.  Parker,  112  Mass. 
250 ;  ante,  U  84-88.    But  see  Jones  v.  .Etna,  14  Conn.  r-Ol,  509. 

11  Crickmore  v.  Breckenridge,  51  Ind.  294,  297  ;  post,  1}  364,  406. 

12  Hulme  v.  Tenant.  1  White  &  T.  Lead.  Cas.  481,  notes. 

13  Compare  Yale  v.  Dederer,  IS  N.  Y.  205,  and  S.  C.  22  N.  Y.  4.50. 

14  Compare  Clark  v.  Miller,  2  Atk.  379,  380,  and  Murray  v.  Barlee,  3 
Myliie  &  K.  209,  223;  Wilson  r.  Jones,  48  Md.  ;W9,  358,  and  Henry  v. 
Blackburn,  32  Ark.  145,  451  ;  Orange  v.  Traver,  7  Sawy.  210,  216,  and 
Hodson  I'.  Davis,  43  Ind.  258,  264.    See  post,  i>  207. 

15  Stuart  i\  Kirkwall,  3  Mod.  387,389;  Vaughan  f.  Vanderstegen, 

2  Drew.  165,  181  ;  McHenry  v.  Davies,  Law  R.  10  Eq.  88,  92  ;  Bolton  v. 
Williams,  2  Ves.  Jr.  138,  142;  Whistler  c.  Newman,  4  Ves.  129,  145; 
Hulme  V.  Tenant,  1  Bro.  Ch.  16  ;  1  White  &  T.  Lead.  Cas.  481,  notes. 

16  American  v.  Wadhams,  10  Barb.  597,  006;  ante,  I  205. 

17  Ellet  V.  Wade,  47  Ala.  456,  464  ;  Hall  v.  Eccleston,  37  Md.  510,  520  ; 
ante,  I  205  ;  post,  I  407. 

18  Knox  V.  Jordan,  5  Jones  Eq.  175,  176.  Nearly  every  where 
intent  to  charge  may  be  implied  :  Miller  v.  Newton,  23  Cal.  .554,  561 ; 
Yale  V.  Dederer,  22  N.  Y.  451,  459. 

19  Clark  V.  Miller,  2  Atk.  379,  380 ;  Burch  v.  Breckenridge,  16  Men. 
B.  482.  487.    Writing  generally  held  not  neces.sarv :  Murray  v.  Barlee, 

3  Myine  &  K.  209,  223  ;  London  v.  Lempriere,  Law  K.  4  P.  C.  672,  591 ; 
Matthewson,  Law  R.  3  Eq.  781,787;  Shattuck,  Law  R.  2  Eq.  182,187; 
Vaughan  v.  Vanderstegen,  2  Drew.  165,  1S3  ;  Ozley  v.  Ikelheimer,  26 
Ala.  332;  Miller  v.  Newton,  23  Cal.  564,  566  ;  Girault  v.  Adams,  fil  Md. 
1, 13;  Miller  v.  Brown,  47  Mo.  504,  510;  4  Am.  Dec.  ;M6  ;  Radford  v. 
Carwile,  13  W.  Va.  573,  6;?.5. 

20  Vaughan  r.  Vanderstegen,  2  Drew.  165, 181. 

21  Knox  1'.  Jordan,  5  Jones  Eq.  175,  176  ;  Creighton  v.  Clifford,  6 
S.  C.  188,  198.    See  ante,  ?  204. 

22  Dallas  v.  Heard,  32  Ga.  604,  607  ;  ante,  ?  204. 

23  Owens  ?'.  Dickinson,  1  Craig  &  P.  48 ;  Vaughan  v.  Vanderstegen, 
2  Drew.  165,  183;  Dallas  v.  Heard,  :{2  Ga.  604,  607. 

24  Bain  v.  Buff,  76  Va.  371,  374. 

25  Vaughan  )'.  Vanderstegen,  2  Drew.  165,  182,  183,  185;  Shattock, 
Law  R.  2  Eq.  182,  189 ;  ante,  i  204. 

26  Aylett )'.  Ashton,  1  Mylne  &  C.  105,  111  ;  Shattock,  Law  R.  2  Eq. 
182,  189  ;  Buckner  v.  Davis,  29  Ark.  447  ;  Radford  v.  Carwile,  13  W.  Va. 
573.  674. 

27  Shattock,  Law  R.  2  Eq.  182,  189, 190. 

28  McChesney  v.  Brown,  25  Gratt.  393,  401 ;  ante,  ?  20.5. 

29  Radford  v.  Carwile,  13  W.  Va.  573,  674,  680  ;  post,  |  211. 

30  Clark  r.  Makenna,  Cheves  Eq.  163  ;  ante,  H  204,  205. 

!»  MattUewman,  Law  R.  3  Eq.  7SI,  787  ;  Staley  v.  Hamilton,  19  Fla. 
275,  297. 


g  2J6  wife's  equitable  estate.  304 

32  Matthewmaii.Law  E.  3  Eq.  781,  787. 

33  Powers  v.  Bussell,  26  Mich.  179, 184  ;  post,  i  -187 ;  ante,  §  94. 

34  Radford  v.  Carwilc,  13  W.  Va.  573,  683. 

3.5    Ante,  I  134.     Contra,  Perkins  v.  Elliott,  23  X.  J.  Eq.  526,  53.5. 

.36  A  charge  is  an  equitable  mortgage  :  First  v.  Haire,  36  Iowa,  443, 
446  ;  Harrison  v.  Stewart.  18  N.  J.  Eq.  451.    See  ante,  i  205. 

37    Yale  v.  Dederer,  18  N.  Y.  265,  283. 

.38  Miller  p.  Newton,  23  Cal.  551.  .564  ;  Koontz  v.  Nobb,  16  Md.  549, 
554  ;  Wilson  r.  Jones,  46  Md.  34'J,  357 ;  Girault  v.  Adams,  61  Md.  1,  13  ; 
Bank  v.  MUler,  63  N.  Y.  639. 

39  Murray  v.  Barlee,  3  Mylne  &  K.  203,  223  ;  supra,  n.  19. 

40  Greatlv  v.  NoUe,  3  Mod.  77,  94  ;  Shattock,  Law  R.  2  Eq.  182, 193  ; 
Miller  ".  Newton,  23  Cal.  .5.>4,  564  ;  Patton  v.  Kinsman,  17  Iowa,  42S, 
433 ;  Pond  V.  Carpenter,  12  Minn.  4W,  432 ;  Yale  v.  Dederer,  22  N.  Y. 
451,  4.59  ;  Finch  v.  Marks,  76  Va.  207,  210. 

41  Knox  V.  Jordan,  5  Jones  Eq.  175, 176. 

42  Miller  v.  Nowton,23  Cal.  564,  564  ;  West  v.  Jackson,  22  Md.  71, 
76,  84. 

43  Miller  v.  Newton,  23  Cal.  554,  .564  ;  Jones  v.  JEtna,  14  Conn.  .=«l, 
.509 ;  Bell  V.  Killar,  13  Mon.  B.  443,  446 :  Boatman  v.  Collins,  75  Mo.  280, 
281  ;  Batchelder  v.  Sargent,  47  N.  H.  262  265  ;  Phillips  v.  Graves,  20 
Ohio  St,  371,  390 ;  5  Am.  Rep.  675  ;  Orange  v.  Traver,  7  Sawy.  210,  215, 
216. 

44  Phillips  V.  Graves,  20  Ohio  St.  371,  390  ;  5  Am.  Rep.  675. 

45  Kimm  v.  Weippert,  46  Mo.  .532  ;  2  Am.  Rep.  541. 

40  Even  in  England  the  doctrine  seems  to  require  some  fact  from 
which  intent  may  be  implied :  London  v.  Lempriere,  Law  R.  4  P.  C 
.572,  593;  Johnson  v.  Gallagher,  2  DeGex  F.  &  J.  494,  514;  Jones  v. 
Harris,  9  Ves.  485,  497, 498. 

47  Burnett  v.  Hawpe,  25  Gratt.  481,  486;  Radford  v.  CarwUe,  13 
W.  Va.  573,  581,  602,  608. 

48  See  Jones  v.  Harris,  9  Ves.  485,  497,  498  ;  Staler  v.  Hamilton,  19 
Fla.  275.  297  ;  Shannon  v.  Bartholemew.  53  Ind.  .54,  .56  ;  Patton  v.  Kins- 
man, 17  Iowa,  428,  433  ;  Jack.son  v.  West,  22  Md.  71,  76,  84  •  Wilson  ?i. 
Jones,  46  Md.  .349,  3.57,  3.5S ;  Devries  v.  Conklin,  22  Mich.  2.55,  2,59  ;  Pond 
?'.  Carpenter,  12  Minn.  430,  432 ;  Johnson  v.  Cummings,  16  N.  J.  Eq.  97, 
104;  Yale  v.  Dederer,  22  N.  Y.  451,  459;  68  N.  Y.  329;  Partridge  v. 
Stocker,  36  Vt.  108,  117. 

49  London  v.  Lempriere,  Law  R.  4  P.  C.  572,  .5>4 ;  Crickmore  v. 
Breckciiridge,  ,51  Ind.  294,  299;  Batchelder  v.  Sargent,  47  N.  H.  262, 
266  ;  Mont!?(jni<Tv  v.  Eveleigh,  1  McCord  Ch.  267,  203  ;  Magwood  v. 
Johnson,  1  Hill  Eq.  228,  230,  231, 

50  Collins  V.  Underwood,  Xi  Ark.  265,  266;  Staleyv.  Hamilton,  19 
Fla.  27.5,  298:  Williams  r.  Hugunin,69  HI.  214,217;  18  Am.  Rep.  607; 
WiUardn.  Eastham,  15  Grav,.328,  3;i5  ;  Batchelder  ?>.  Sargent,  47  N.  H. 
262,266  ;  McVey  r.  CaiitrcU,  7(1  X.  Y.  295,  298;  26  .\m.  Rep.  605  ;  Yale 
V.  Dederer,  22  N.  Y.  4.M,  -I'll),  46(i;  Frazier  v.  Brownslow,  3  Ired.  Eq. 
237;  42  Am.  Dec.  165  ;  I'artriils^t-  i:  Stocker,  36  Vt.  108,  117;  Radford 
jr.  Carwile,  13  V.  Va.  573,  Oil  ;  1  Bish.  JI.  W.  i  875. 

.51  Orange  v.  Traver,  7  Sawy.  210,  216  ;  Henry  v.  Blackburn,  32  Ark. 
445,  451. 

52  Shannon  v.  Bartholemew.  ,53  Ind.  &1,  56  ;  W'ilson  v.  Jones,  46  Md. 
349,  357,  358.    Contra,  Henry  i'.  Blackburn,  32  Ark.  445,  451. 


305  wife's  equitable  estate.  g  207 

53  Williams  r.  Huguiiin,  65  III.  214,  217  ;  18  Am.  Rep.  GOT  ;  Perkins 
r.  Elliott,  23  N.  J.  Eq.  o^i,  535  ;  ante,  i  VM. 

54  Lonflon  v.  Lemprlere,  L'lw  R.  4  P.  C.  572,  .534  ;  Collins  v.  Under- 
wood, 33  Ark.  265,  266  ;  post,  i  373. 

.55  Staler  v.  Hamilton,  Ifi  Fla.  275,  208  ;  Williams  v.  Hugunln,  60  111. 
214,  217  ;  18  .\m.  Rep.  607  ;  Orange  v.  Travcr,  7  Sawy.  210,  216  ;  Bryan, 
18  Tex.  461,  465,  467  ;  Todd  v.  Lee,  15  Wis.  305,  36)  ;  16  Wis.  480,  483. 

.56  Stnart  v.  Kirkwall,  3  Mod.  387,  38:i ;  MoHenrv  v.  Davies,  Law  R. 
10  Eq.  88,  'j2  ;  Johnson  v.  Cummings,  16  N.  J.  Eq.  97,  104  ;  pr««,  §  207. 

?  207.  Wife's  power  to  contract  concorning  hor  equitable 
separate  estate —  Decisions.  —  The  decisions  as  to  the  wife's 
contracts  concerning  her  equitable  separate  estate  are 
inharmonious — both  those  in  the  different  States  and 
tliose  in  the  same  State.'  Broadly,  it  may  be  said,  that 
it  is  liable  on  all  conti-acts  in  which  the  credit  was  not 
given  to  the  husband, ^  in  the  following  States :  Eng- 
land,^ Alabama,*  Arkansas,^  Caiifornia,^  Connecticut,^ 
Georgia,^  Kansas,^  Iventucky,'"  Mississippi,"  Missouri,"* 
New  Hampshire, '3  Ohio,i*  Oregon, '^  Texas, '^  Virginia," 
West  Virginia,^^  and  Wisconsin  '^  In  the  following 
States  there  must  be  soine  reference  to  the  said  estate  — 
some  express  pledge  of  it  or  some  circumstances  beside 
the  fact  of  coverture  from  which  an  intent  to  jiledge  it 
may  be  inferred  :  Florida.^o  Illinois, ^i  Indiana,'^^  Iowa,'"'' 
jMaryland,"''*  Massachusetts, ^^  Michicjan,^^  r^Ihinesota,^^ 
New  Jersey,^^  New  York,®  and  Vermont.^"  In  the  fol- 
lowing States,  though  it  may  be  liable  for  expenses 
necessarily  attached  to  it,^'  it  is  not  liable  for  the  wife's 
contracts  unless  they  come  within  the  scope  of  the 
powers  given  her  hy  the  settlement :  North  Carolina,^^ 
Pennsylvania,^^  Rhode  Island,^*  and  South  Carolina.^^ 
riorida,^^  Mississippi,^^  and  Tennessee,^^  which  also 
once  held  the  South  Carolina  rule  ^^  seem  in  this  con- 
nection to  have  abandoned  it,*"  In  California  a  statute 
formeiiy  required  the  contracts  to  be  in  writing.*' 

1  Hulme  V.  Tenant,  1  White  &  T.  Lead  Cas.  4SI,  and  notes  ;  ante, 
§207. 

2  5Iatthewni.i;i,  Law  R.  3  Eq.  781,  787  ;  ante,  ?  207. 


§  207  wife's  eqvitable  estate.  306 

3  London  v.  Lempriere,  Law  R.  4  P.  C.  5T2,  5fM  (1875) ;  Butler  !•. 
Cumpston,  Law  R.  7  Eq.  Ifi,  20,  21  ;  Matthewman,  Law  R.  3  Eq.  7S1, 
7H7 ;  Shattock,  Law  R.  2  Eq.  1S2,  187  ;  Picard  v.  Hine,  Law  R.  5  Ch. 
App.  274  :  Johnson  v.  Gallagher,  3  DeGex.  F.  &  J.  4<W,  51-1  ;  Murray 
V.  Barlee.  3  Mvlne  &  K.  209,  223  ;  Vaughan  v.  Vanderstegen,  2  Drew. 
165,  ISO ;  Hulme  r.  Tenant,  1  Bro.  Ch.  16  ;  1  White  &  T.  Lead.  Cas.  48, 
4th  Am.  Ed.  679,  collecting  cases. 

4  WUburn  v.  McCallev,  63  Ala.  436,  447  ;  McKenna  v.  Rowlett,  68 
Ala.  Is6  ;  Braune  r.  McGee,  50  Ala.  3.5:).  363  ;  .Short  i:  Battle,  52  Ala. 
4.36;  Cowles  i:  Pollard.  51  Ala.  445  ;  Xunn  v.  Givhan,  45  Ala.  375  ;  Wil- 
kinson r.  Cheatham,  45  .\la.  341 ;  Cowles  !•.  Morgan,  .34  Ahu  a-Vi ;  Paulk 
V.  Wolfe,  34  Ala.  511 ;  Gunter  v.  Williams,  40  Ala.  521 ;  Baker  v.  Greg- 
orv,  28  Ala.  544  ;  Ozlev  v.  Ikelheimer,  26  Ala.  3:2,  a38 ;  Collins  v. 
Rudolf,  19  Ala.  616  ;  Puryear,  16  Ala.  4.S6. 

5  Collins  V.  Underwood.  33  Ark.  265,  266;  Henrv  r.  Blackburn,  32 
Ark.  445.  4.>1 ;  Palmer  v.  Rankin,  30  Ark.  771 ;  Buckner  i:  Davis,  2'J 
Ark.  447  ;  StlUwell  v.  Adams,  29  Ark.  .346;  Oswalt  v.  Moore,  19  Ark. 
257  ;  Dobbin  v.  Hubbard,  17  Ark.  189,  196. 

6  Miller  ?'.  Xewton,  23  Cal.  5.>4,. 564.  Must  be  in  writing :  Maclay  r. 
Love,  25  Cal.  367,  381  ;  Boolev  i-.  Furguson,  30  Cal.  511  ;  Smith  v.  Greer, 
31  Cal.  476,  479. 

7  Jones  v.  ^tna,  14  Conn.  501,  509  ;  Taylor  v.  &helton,  30  Conn.  122, 
127;  Leavitt  v.  Beirne,  21  Conn.  1;  Imlav  i\  Huntington,  20  Conn. 
146, 173  ;  Piatt  V.  Hawkir.s,  43  Conn.  143  ;  Wells  v.  Thorman,  37  Conn. 
318  ;  Buckingham  v.  Moss,  40  Conn.  461. 

8  Fears  v.  Brooks,  12  Ga.  105, 200 ;  Carmlchael  r.  Walters,  33  Ga.  .316, 
328  ;  Dallas  v.  Heard,  32  Ga.  601,  (W  ;  Morrison  v.  Solomon,  52  Ga.  206  ; 
Seabrook  v.  Bradv,  47  Ga.  6.J0  ;  V.n  Arsdale  f.  Joiner,  44  Ga.  41 ;  Huff 
V.  Wright,  31  Ga.  41  ;  Roberts  v.  West,  15  Ga.  123;  Wylly  v.  Collins,  9 
Ga.  223  ;  Weeks  v.  Sego,  4  Ga,  201. 

9  Wicks  !•.  Mitchf  11,  9  Kan.  80, 87,  S3  ;  Deering  v.  Boyle,  8  Kan.  529: 
Knaggs  V.  Mastou,  9  Kan.  532. 

10  Burch  V.  Breckenridge,  16  Mon.  B.  4-S2,  4.87;  Bell  v.  Kellar,  13 
Mon.  B.  381,  383,  :i.85  ;  Lillard  v.  Turner,  16  Mon.  B.  374,  375  ;  Coleman 
J'.  Wooley,  10  Mon.  B.  320;  Jarmen  r.  Wilkeson,  7  Mon.  B.  293; 
Sweeney  v.  Smith,  15  Mon.  B.  325  ;  Long  v.  White,  5  Marsh.  J.  J.  226. 

11  Musson  V.  Trigg,  51  Miss.  172,185,186.  See  Davis  »>.  Wilkerson, 
40  Miss.  5S5  ;  Witcher  r.  Wilson,  47  Miss.  603  ;  Pollen  v.  James,  45  Miss. 
129  :  Dunbar  v.  Meyer,  43  Miss.  679 ;  Armstrong  v.  .Stoval,  26  Mis.s.  275; 
Robertson  v.  Bruner,  24  Miss.  242  ;  Boarman  v.  Graves,  23  Miss.  283  ; 
Dolev  V.  Mitchell,  9  Smedes  <fe  M.  435 ;  Montgomery  v.  Bank,  10 
Smedes  &  M.  567. 

12  Davisi'.  Smith,75Mo.  219, 2i5  ;  Boatmen  r.  Collins, 75  Mo.  280,281  ; 
Whiteley  v.  Stewart,  6:5  Mo.  3<i3 ;  Gage  v.  Gates,  62  Mo.  417  ;  Sharpe  r. 
McPike.  62  Mo.  307  ;  Bank  v.  Tavlor,  62  Mo.  3.3S  ;  Lincoln  r.  Rowe.  57 
Mo.  571  ;  Kimm  v.  Wieppert,  46  Mo.  .5.32  ;  2  Am.  Rep.  541  ;  Miller  i . 
Brown,  47  Mo.  .504,  508  :  4  Am.  Rep.  345  ;  Schapath  v.  .\mbs.  46  Mo.  114, 
116  ;  Clatiin  v.  Van  Wagoner,  32  Mo.  252  ;  Whitesides  v.  Cannon,  2:{  Mo. 
4.b7;  Segond  I'.  Garland  23  Mo.  547;  Coatps  t».  Robinson,  10  Mo.  7.57,  760. 

13  Batchelder  v.  Sargent,  47  N.  H.  262,  266  ;  Xims  v.  Bigelow,  4."> 
X^H.  343 ;  Hutchins  !•.  Colby,  43  >'.  H.  159 ;  Vogt  v.  Tichnor,  48  N.  H. 

14  Phillips  V.  Graves,  20  Ohio,  St.  371,  390  ;  5  Am.  Rep.  675;  Urm- 
ston  I'.  Williams,  35  Ohio  St.  296 ;  Hardy  v.  Van  Harllnger,  7  Ohio  St. 
208. 

15  Orange  v.  Traver,  7  Sawy.  210,  215. 216. 


307  wife's  equitable  estate.  g  207 

16  Bryan,  18  Tex.  461,  405,  467;  Milburn  )•.  Walker,  11  Tex.  329: 
Hollls  V.  Francois,  5  Tex.  20J ;  51  Am.  Dec.  760. 

17  Burnett  v.  Hawpe,  2.5  Gratt.  4SI,  486  ;  Justes  v.  English,  3n  Gratt. 
56.5;  Bank  v.  Chambers,  30  Gratt.  202,  209;  Bain  v.  Buff,  76  Va.  371, 
374  ;  Finch  v.  Marks,  76  Va.  207,  210;  Darnall  v.  Smith,  26  Gratt.  878  ; 
MuUer  v.  Bailey,  21  Gratt.  528  ;  Penn  v.  Whitehead,  17  Gratt.  .503  ; 
Nixon  V.  Rose,  12  Gratt.  431  ;  Wootison  v.  Perkins,  5  Gratt.  345  ;  Whit- 
ing V  Rust  1  Gratt.  483  ;  West,  3  Rand.  373. 

18  Radford  v.  Carwile,  13  W.  Va.  573.  .581-as2,  collecting  cases  ; 
Dages  V.  Lee.  20  W.  Va.  584  ;  Hughes  v.  HamUton,  19  W.  Va.  306. 

19  Todd  V.  Lee,  15  Wis.  365, 369  ;  16  Wis.  480, 483 ;  Krouskop  v.  Shontz, 
51  Wis.  -201, 214. 

20  Stalev  v.  Hamilton,  19  Fla.  275,  297  ;  Thrasher  ?>.  Geiger,  18  Fla. 
809  ;  Caulk  v.  Fox,  13  Fla.  148  ;  Alston  v.  Rowles,  13  Fla.  117 ;  Aber- 
nathv,  8  Fla.  243  ;  Sanderson  v.  Jones.  6  Fla.  4:iO  ;  Maiben  v.  Bobe.  6 
Fla.  381 ;  Lewis  v.  Yale,  4  Fla.  418  ;  Smith  v.  Paythress,  2  Fla.  92. 

21  Williams  v.  Hugunin,  69  111.  214,  217  ;  18  Am.  Rep.  607 ;  Fiirness 
V.  McGovern,  78  111.  337,  3:8  ;  Carpenter  v.  Jlitchell,  50  111.  470,474  ; 
Bchmidt  v.  Postel,  63  111.  58  ;  Pomeroy  v.  Insurance,  40  111.  378. 

22  Shannon  v.  Bartholemew,  53  Ind.  54,  56  ;  Crickmore  v.  Breck- 
enridge,  51  Ind.  294,  2;)7  ;  Hodson  ?'.  Davis,  43  Ind.  2.58  ;  Hasheagan  ?•. 
Specker,  36  Ind.  414;  Katrowitz,  31  Ind.  10.5;  Abdil,  26  Ind.  287;  Cox 
1'.  Wood,  20  Ind.  .54  ;  Reese  v.  Cochran,  10  Ind.  19.5. 

23  First  v.  Haire,  36  Iowa,  .443,  446  ;  Patton  v.  Kinsman,  17  Iowa, 
428,  433  ;  Ureenough  v.  Wiggington,  2  Greene.  4."^. 

24  Girault  v.  Adams,  61  Md.  1, 13  ;  Wilson  v.  Jones,  46  Md.  349,  357, 
a5S  ;  Hall  >:  Eccleston,  37  Md.  510,  520;  Jackson  v.  West,  22  Md.  71, 
84  ;  Kooutz  V.  Xabb,  16  Md.  549,  5.54. 

25  Willard  v.  Eastham,  15  Gray,  328,  V>o  ;  Rogers  v.  Ward,  8  Allen, 
387  ;  Tracy  i\  Keith,  U  Allen,  214  ;  Allen  v.  Fuller,  118  Mass.  402 ;  WU- 
der  V.  Richie,  117  Mass.  382,  384. 

26  Davies  r.  Conklin,22  Mich.  2-5.5,  259.  See  Powers  ?•.  Russell.  26 
Mich.  179  ;  Rankin  i<.  West,  25  Mich.  255 ;  Deuison  v.  Gibson,  24  Mich. 
187. 

27  Pond  ?'.  Carpenter,  12  Minn.  430,  432  ;  Leonard  r.  Carpenter,  5 
Minn.  156 ;  Flynn  v.  Messenger,  28  Minn.  208  ;  41  Am.  Rep.  27 J. 

28  Perkins  r.  Elliott,  23  N.  J.  Eq.  526,  5-35 ;  Armstrong  v.  Ross,  20 
N.  J.  Eq.  10:j  119  ;  Johnson  r.  Cummiiigs,  16  X.  J.  Eq.  97, 104;  Oakley 
V.  Pound,  14  X.  J.  Eq.  178  ;  Pcntz  )'.  Simonson,  13  N.  J.  Eq.  232,  235  ; 
Leaycraft  i:  Heddeu,  4  X.  J.  Eq.  5.52. 

29  Yale  v.  Dederer,  68  X.  Y.  329 ;  22  X'.  Y.  450  ;  18  X.  Y.  265  ;  31  Barb. 
525  ;  21  Barb.  286  ;  20  How.  Pr.  242  ;  19  How.  Pr.  14(j ;  17  How.  Pr.  Vi-i ; 
Jaques  v.  Methodist,  17  Johns.  Ch.  548  ;  3  Johns.  Ch.  :J7  ;  1  Johns.  Ch. 
450  ;  8  Am.  Dec.  447 ;  Saratoga  v.  Pruvn,  90  X.  Y.  2.50,  254  ;  McVey  v. 
Cantrell,  70  X.  Y.  29.5,  297  ;  26  Am.  Rep.  605;  Conlm  v.  Cantrell,  64 
N.  Y.  217  ;  Bank  v.  Miller,  63  X'.  Y.  6.39  ;  Manhattan  v.  Thompson,  58 
N.  Y.  80,  84  ;  Insurance  v.  Babcock,  42  X.  Y.  613;  Scott  v.  Otis,  25 
Hun,  .33;  Speck  )•.  Gurnee,  25  Hun,  644  ;  Gardner,  7  Paige,  112,  116; 
Knowles  v.  McCanily,  10  Paige,  343,  346  ;  Cook  v.  Brook,  21  Barb.  516, 
551.  See  Xew  York  cases  cited  and  discussed :  Radford  v.  Carwile, 
13  W.  Va.  573,  611. 

30  Partridge  v.  Stocker,  36  Vt.  108,  117  ;  Sargeant  v.  French,  54  Vt. 
384,  391 ;  Dale  i>  Robinson,  51  Vt.  20  ;  31  Am.  Rep.  669  ;  Priest  v.  Cone, 
51  Vt.  499  ;  31  Am.  Rep.  695. 


g  208  wife's  equitable  estate.  308 

31  Montgomerv  v.  Evoleigh,  1  McCord  I'h.  2r,7.  2fiT ;  TJagwood  v. 
Johnson,  1  Hill  Eq.  228,  230 ;  Cater  v.  Everleigh,  4  Desaus.  19  ;  Frazier 
IK  Brovvnslow,  -i  Ired.  Eq.  237  ;  42  Am.  Dec.  105. 

32  Knox  V.  Jordan,  .5  Jones  Eq.  175,  176;  Harris,  7  Ired.  Eq.  311 ; 
.53  Am.  Den.  3!)3  ;  Frazier  )•.  Brownslow,  3  Ired.  Eq.  2:;7 ;  42  Am.  Dec. 
l(;r> ;  Xcwlin  v.  Freeman,  4  Ired.  Eq.  312 ;  Leierh  ?•.  SmUh,  3  Ired.  Eq. 
442;  F -Iton  V.  Reid,  7  Jones,  261) ;  Rogers  v.  Hintoi),  Phill.  Eq.  101  ; 
Pippen  r.  Wesson,  74  N.  C.  442  ;  Atkinson  v.  Richardson,  74  N.  C.  458  ; 
Hardy  v.  Holly,  64  N.  C.  661. 

33  Lyne  v.  Grouse,  1  Pa.  St.  HI;  Rogers  v.  Smith,  4  Pa.  St.  93; 
CorvoU  V.  I)untoii,7  Pa.  8t.  5::0,  531  ;  4J  Am.  Dec.  48');  Chessman  i\ 
Wagon "r,  n  Pa.  St.  473;  Mahon  r.  Gormlev,  24  Pa.  St.  80;  Keeney  ?•. 
Good,  21  Pa.  St.  340 ;  Housrh  v.  Jones,  32  Pa.  St.  432  ;  Pa.  r.  Foster,  35 
Pa.  St.  VM  ;  Murray  v.  Kevcs,  35  Pa.  St.  384  ;  Parke  r.  Kleeber,  37 
Pa.  St.  251 ;  Stiininan  v.  Ewiiig,  43  Pa.  St.  63  ;  Remfelt  v.  Clemens,  46 
P.i.  St.  405;  M'risht  r.  Brown,  44  P.i.  St.  244;  Wcinian  r.  .A.nderson, 
42  Pa.  St.  311  ;  Hiiiney  r.  Phillips.  50  Pa.  St.  :iS2  ;  Hartnian  r  Ogborn, 
54  Pa.  St.  i:o ;  Walker  v.  Coovor,  65  Pa.  St.  430  ;  JIcMnllen  v.  Beatty, 
fif.  Pa.  St.  35.') ;  Wells  v.  MoCall,  74  Pa.  St.  207  ;  Moore  r  Cornell,  78 
Pa.  St.  320;  Shuvdor  v.  Noble,  M  Pa.  St.  236,  28!)  ;  Lancaster  v.  Dolan, 
1  Rawl-,  2:!1  ;  18  Am.  Dec.  625  ;  Wallace  v.  Coston,  9  Watts,  137  ;  Dor- 
ranee  v.  Scott,  3  Whart.  306  ;  31  Am.  Dec.  509  ;  Johnson,  1  Grant,  468. 

34  Metealf  v.  Cook,  2  R.  I.  355,  363. 

.35  CreiKhton  r.  Clifford,  6  S.  C.  188, 198  ;  Clark  v.  Mnkenna.  Cheves 
Eq.  163;  Reid  v.  Lamar,  1  Strob.  Eq.  27;  Adams  ?'.  Mackey,  6  Rich. 
Eq.  75  ;  James  v.  Mayrant,  4  Desaus.  5!il ;  6  Am.  Dec.  6:;0  ;  cases  supra, 
n.  31. 

36  Staley  v.  Hamilton,  19  Fla.  275,  297  ;  supra,  n.  20  ;  ante,  ?  203. 

37  Musson  v.  Trigg,  57  Miss  172, 185,  ISO ;  supra,  n.  11 ;  ante,  ?  203. 

35  Yoimg,  7  Cold.  461,  462.  See  Kirbv  v.  Miller,  4  Cold.  4  ;  Cherrv  i-. 
Clements,  10  Hnnipli.  5.52,  572;  Litton  v.  Baldwin,  8  Humph.  20<) ; 
47  Am.  Dec.  605;  Marshall  7\  Stephens,  8  Humph.  1.59;  47  Am.  Dec. 
601  ;  Morgan  v.  Elam,  4  Yerg.  375  ;  Ware  v.  Sharp,  1  Swan,  489. 

39  See  ante,i  203. 

40  See  also  Pippen  v.  Wesson,  74  N.  C.  442  ;  supra,  n.  32. 

41  Maclay  v.  Lovo,  25  Cal.  .367, 381  ;  supra,  n.  6. 

g  203.  Wife's  power  to  will  hor  equitable  separate  estate. 
— A  married  Avoman  has  at  common  law  no  capacity  to 
inako  a  will,'  except  in  tlie  exercise  of  a  power.^  But 
hor  will  of  her  equitable  .separate  estate  may  be  valid 
in  equity.^  A.'?  in  the  ca.se  of  her  conveyances,*  there 
are  two  rules  :  (1)  That  she  cannot  will  this  estate  un- 
less empowered  by  the  settlement ;°  (2)  that  she  can 
A\ill  this  e.state  unless  restrained  by  the  settlement.^ 
The  same  principles  fjovern  in  determining  Avhat  con- 
stitutes a  restraint ;'  and  the  same  difference  of  opinion 
exists  as  to  Avhether  she  can  will  only*  her  personalty, 


309  wife's  equitable  estate.  §  209 

rents,  and  profits,^  etc.,  or  the  cori^us  of  her  realty  as 
well.^"  A  power  to  will  she  executes  as  a  femme  sole,^^ 
and  when  she  can  will  indeiDendenlly  of  a  power  her 
husband  need  not  consent. i'-"  And  the  fact  that  a  statute 
enables  her  to  will  ^^  does  not  restrict  her  capacity  to 
will  under  a  power,'*  or  in  equity  a^  a  fevfime  sole,  her 
equitable  separate  estate  ; '5  still  a  will  wiU  not  be  held 
an  execution  of  a  power  if  it  does  not  refer  to  such 
power  and  is  valid  witliout  it.'^ 

1  Harris  v.  Harberson,  9  Bush,  397,  402,  404 ;  post,  W  a40-3.54. 

2  Schlov  ?-.  McCenev,  36  Md.  2G7,  275;  Heath  v.  Withington,  6 
Cush.  497, 500  ;  pout,  i  342. 

3  Loigh  V.  .Smith.  3  Ired.  Eq.  445,  446.  See  Tavlor  v.  Meads,  4 
DeGex  J.  &  S.  5J7,  C07  ;  Pride  v.  Bubb,  Law  R.  7  C"h.  (U;  Cooper  v. 
Macdonald,  Law  R.  7  Ch.  28S ;  Wells  v.  Bradford,  28  Ala.  200,  212; 
8chiill  V.  Murray,  .-ia  Md.  9,  15,  IG;  Morv  v.  Michael,  13  Md.  227,  241; 
Radford  v.  Carwile,  13  W.  Va.  573,  579,  663,  667. 

4  Swift  V.  Castle,  23  111.  200, 220 ;  ante,  U  203,  205. 

5  Wilkinson  v.  Wright,  6  Mon.  B.  576,  577  ;  West,  3  Band.  373,  377 ; 
ante,  203. 

6  Schull  V.  Miirraj',  32  Md.  9,  10,  16  ;  ante,  U  203,  204. 

7  Lyne  v.  Crouso,  1  Pa.  St.  Ill,  115  ;  ante,  I  204. 

8  Radford  v.  Carwile,  13  W.  Va.  573,  579,  663.     Consult  ante,  ?  20i>. 

9  Fottiplaoe  v.  Gorges,  1  Ves.  Jr.  46,  48  :  3  Bro.  Ch.  8,  10 ;  Rich  v. 
CockPll,  9  Ves.  36  I ;  Parker  r.  Brooke,  9  Ves.  58! ;  Brooke,  25  Beav. 
346  ;  C:ito'i  7'.  Ri  lout,  1  Macn.  &  G.  539 ;  Rowe,  2  DeGex  G.  &  S.  2,i4  ; 
West,  3  Rand.  .373,  377. 

10  Tavlor  v.  Meads,  4  DeGex  J.  &  S.  5i7,  607 ;  Bagget  v.  Meux,  1 
PhilI.Ch.62S;  H  ill)'.  Waterhouse,  11  Jur.  N.  S.  361 ;  Schull  t).  Murray, 
;i2  Xvld.  9,  12, 16  ;  Radford  v.  Carwile,  13  W.  Va.  573,  667. 

11  Schley  v.  McCeney,  36  Md.  267,  275. 

12  Wells  V.  Bradford.  28  Ala.  200,  212. 

13  Taylor  v.  Meads,  4  DeGex  J.  <fe  S.  597,  607  ;  pout,  U  M5,  »46. 
n    Taylor  v.  Meads,  4  DeGex  J.  &  S.  637,  607 ;  post,  ?  216. 

15  Buchanan  v.  Turner,  26  Md.  1,7;  post,  ?  216. 

16  Mory  v.  Michael,  18  Md.  227,  241  ;  ante,  ?  205. 

§  239.  Wife's  rights  in  tha  increaso — rents,  profits,  in- 
come, etc.  —  of  her  equitable  separate  property. — The  sprout 
savors  of  tlie  root  and  goes  the  same  waj',!  and  there- 
fore the  increase  of  a  wife's  equitable  separate  estate  is 
also  equitable  separate  estate,^  and  is  subject  to  the 
same  incidents  as  the  original  estate,^  a  rule  which  ap- 


g  310  wife's  equitable  estate.  310 

plies  to  all  of  a  Avife's  separate  property.*  Thus,  her 
savings  are  hers  whether  invested  or  not  ;^  so  is  furni- 
ture bought  with  Iier  separate  money;*  and  so  prop- 
erty bought  Avitli  an  inalienable  fund  is  inalienable.' 
The  rents  and  profits  of  her  realty  are  hers  absolutely,^ 
even  Avhere  lier  right  to  dispose  of  the  corpus  of  the 
realty  is  denied.^  Still,  if  she  is  living  with  her  hus- 
band, and  allows  him  to  collect  and  use  her  income  for 
his  own  purposes,  a  gift  of  it  to  him  is  presumed,"*  and 
it  may  even  be  taken  by  his  creditors;"  only  when 
he  appropriates  it  wrongfully,^^  or  as  her  agent,"  or 
trustee,  "  or  on  promise  to  repay  hcr,'^  does  she  retain 
her  rights. 

1  Gore  V.  Knight,  2  Vern.  535 ;  Prec.  Ch.  255. 

2  Hout  V.  Sorrell,  11  Ala.  SB6,  339,  401. 

3  Rowley  v.  rnwin,  2  Kay  <fe  J.  138, 141. 

4  Stout  V.  Perry,  70  Ind.  501,  504.    Discussed /)o«<,  J  227 

5  Hout  V.  Sorrell,  11  Ala.  386,  399. 

6  Duncan  v.  Cashier,  Law  R.  10  C.  P.  5.54,  557. 

7  Rowley  v.  Unwin,  2  Kaj'  &  J.  138,  141. 

8  Cheevor  v.  Wilson,  0  Wall.  lOS,  119 ;  Roper,  29  Ala.  247,  252. 

9  McOhesnev  v.  Brown,  25  Gratt.  .393,  404  ;  Radford  t'.  Carwlle,  13 
W.  Va.  .573,  670  ;  ante,  U  '-05,  20S. 

10  Andrews  v.  Huckahee,  .30  .\Ia.  143.  1",2.  S.  P.  Square  v.  Dean,  4 
Rro.  Ch.  326;  Dixon,  Law  R.  9  Ch.  D.  5h7  ;  Roper,  29  Ala.  247,  253; 
Humphries  v.  Hanison,  30  Ark.  79;  MeGill,  19  Fla.  .311,  .^55  ;  Kuhn  v. 
Stansfiekl,  28  Md.  210,  216  ;  Cogley,  13  Phila.  308 ;  ante,  f  ?  42,  86. 

11  Nelson  r.  Hollins,  0  Baxt.  553,  5-54. 

12  Gover  v.  Owings,  16  Jld.  91,  99 ;  ante,  ?  42. 

13  Buckley  v.  Wells,  33  N.  Y.  5is,  .521  ;  ante,  U  S6,  87. 

14  Gover  v.  Owings.  16  Md.  91,  99  ;  ante,  U  42,  86-88,  202. 

15  Kuhn  )'.  Stansfleld,  28  Md.  210,  216  ;  ante,  ?  42. 

?  213.  Eomodioa  of  wife  concerning  her  equitable  separ- 
ate estate.  —  A  married  woman  may  bring  suit  in  equity 
respecting  her  equitable  separate  property, *  even  it 
seems  alone ;  ^  but  usually  lier  trustee  or  husband 
should  join.3  Slie  may  have  an  injunction  to  prevent 
her  husband's  interference  with  her  riglits,*  or  to  pre- 
vent his  creditors  from  seizing  her  property  for  his 


311  wife's  equitable  estati:.  J  211 

debts.*  She  may  have  her  conveyance  if  fraudulently 
obtained  set  aside. ^  She  and  her  second  husband  may 
at  law  recover  her  property  from  her  first  husband's 
estate.^  She  has  all  legal  remedies  through  her  hus- 
band or  trustee.^ 

1  2  Perry  Trusts,  §  654  ;  Jackson  v.  Haworth,  I  Sausse  &  S.  161. 

2  Crump,  34  Beav.  570. 

3  See  Brent  v.  Magruder,  6  Md.  58  ;  post,  H  439,  440. 

4  Anderson,  2  Mylne  &  K.  427. 

5  Shirley,  9  Paige,  363,  364.    Compare  Frazier  v.  White,  49  Md.  1. 

6  Fargo  v.  Goodspeed,  87  III.  290,  296. 

7  Thomas  v.  Harkness,  13  Bush,  23,  30. 

8  See  Suits  of  Married  Women,  pr«<,  ??  428-463. 

§  211.  Remedies  against  equitable  separate  property  of 
married  women.  —  A  wife,  of  course,  takes  her  property 
subject  to  all  its  liabilities,^  so  that  wlien  the  settlement 
is  by  will  tlie  property  settled  may  be  subjected  in 
equity  to  tlie  testator's  debts.'-'  But  it  is  not  liable  to 
any  greater  extent  than  her  ordinary  propei'ty,^  ex-. 
cept  on  her  contracts  wliich  bind  it  in  equity.*  Thus, 
it  is  not  peculiarly  liable  for  her  antenuptial  obliga- 
tions,* or  for  her  torts  committed  during  coverture.^ 
On  her  contracts  which  bind  it  she  is  not  personally 
liable,'  and  it  is  liable  only  in  equity*  in  a  proceeding 
in  rem?  The  bill  of  complaint  must  show  that  the 
property  sought  to  be  charged  is  his  separate  prop- 
erty ,1''  as  she  cannot  at  common  law  render  her  gen- 
eral property  liable ;  '^  and  her  husband, '^  or  her 
trustee  '^  must  be  made  a  party.  The  contract  sued  on 
may  be  enforced  as  an  equitable  mortgage,'*  or  a  spe- 
cific lien  if  a  particular  piece  of  property  has  been 
charged  in  writing ;  '*  but  ordinarily  there  is  no  spe- 
cific lien, I''  and  not  only  can  property  in  the  hands  of 
bona  fide  purchasers  not  be  touched, i'  but  all  separate 
property  owned  at  the  time  of  the  hearing,'^  or  even 
such  as  is  acquired  after  the  decree,'^  may  be   held 


§  211  wife's  equitable  estate.  312 

responsible ;  it  need  not  have  been  owned  at  the  time 
of  the  contract.-'"  Income  which  cannot  be  antici- 
pated,'^ or  the  corpus  of  realty  which  cannot  be  dis- 
posed of,''''  cannot  be  subjected  to  the  payment  of  the 
wife's  debts ;  but  generally  principal  and  income  are 
liable, ^^  and  the  court  may  enforce  tlie  debt  by  order- 
ing the  wife  to  pay  on  penalty  of  sale,'*  or  by  decreeing 
a  sale,^  or  by  appointing  a  receiver ;  '6  the  corpus  of 
the  realty  will  usually  be  resorted  to  only  in  case  of 
necessity  ;'^'  the  personalty,  then  the  rents  and  profits, 
and  then  the  realtj^  will  be  exhausted. '^  This  is  the 
meaning  of  tlie  rule  that  a  married  woman  may  bo 
sued  with  respect  to  her  equitable  separate  property  ;  '^ 
she  is  in  fact  not  sued  as  one  sui  juris, •^'^  the  proceed- 
ing being  in  rem  she  may  by  permission  of  the  court 
be  summoned  outside  of  its  jurisdiction  ;2i  slie  may 
answer  separately ,^2  and  she  is  bound  by  her  answer,^^ 
or  by  her  settlement  of  accounts ;  ^*  her  declarations 
are  evidence  against  her  ;^*  and  she  may  be  guilty  of 
contempt  of  court.'^ 

1  Winston  v.  McAlpine,  65  Ala.  377  ;  C'owton  r.  Wickersham,  54 
Pa.  St.  302. 

2  Cowton  V.  Wickersham,  54  Pa.  St.  302. 

3  See  Chubb  v.  Stretch,  Law  R.  9  Eq.  oo5,  560  ;  Crocker  v.  Clem- 
ents, 23  Ala.  2!)6,  304. 

4  Vanderheyden  v.  Mallorj-,  I  Corost.  452,  462, 463 ;  ante,  U  206,  207. 

5  Haysrood  v.  Harris,  10  Ala.  271,  292  ;  Vanderheyrlen  r.  Jfallorv, 
1  Comst.  452,  402,  403.    Compare  Crocker  v.  Clement's,  23  Ala.  296,  304. 

6  See  2  Perry  on  Trusts,  §  6.59. 

7  Vnughan  v.  V.'inderste^en,  2  Drew.  165,  184  ;  Miller  v.  Newton, 
23  Cal.  554,  564  ;  Davis  v.  Smith,  75  Mo.  219,  225. 

8  Hay2;ood  v.  Harris,  10  Ala.  291,  292;  Miller  r.  Newton,  23  Cal- 
.554,  .564  ;  Hull  )■.  Eecleston,  .37  Md.  510,  .521,  .522  ;  Gage  v.  Gates,  62  Mo. 
412,  417  ;  Radford  v.  Carwile,  13  W.  Va.  573,  662. 

9  Vanshan  v.  Vanderstegen,  2  Drew.  16.5,  184 ;  Challar  ?'.  Temple, 
39  Ark.  238,  242  ;  Smith  i<.  Gooch,  86  N.  C.  276,  280  ;  post,  i  4.^3. 

10  Palmer  v.  Rankins,  .30  Ark.  771,  773  ;  post,  431. 

11  Vaughan  v.  Vanderstegen,  2  Drew.  165,  184  ;  Buchner  v.  Davis, 
29  Ark.  444,  447. 

12  See  Grout  v.  Van  Schoonoven,  9  Paige,  2-55  ;  Sherman  v.  Burn- 
ham,  6  Barb.  403  ;  Wilso:i,  (>  Ired.  Eq.  236 ;  Bra.Uey  v.  Emerson,  7  Vt. 


313  wife's  equitable  estate,  §  213 

13  Vaughan  i\  Vandprstegen,  2  Drew.  105,  ih4  ;  Palmer  r.  Ranki:is, 
30  Ark.  771.  77-1 ;  ante,  I  202. 

14  See  Tiernan  v.  Poor,  1  Gill  <fe  J.  216,  223  ;  10  ^m.  Dec.  225  ;  ante, 
il  205,  207. 

13    Maxon  v.  Scott,  5.5  N.  Y.  247,  251. 

16  Davis  V.  Smith,  75  Mo.  219,  224  ;  Todd  v.  Ames,  60  Barb.  454,  46^  ; 
Miixon  V.  Scott,  55  N.  Y.  247,  251 ;  Rourk  v.  Murphy,  12  Abb.  N.  C. 
402  ;  Todd  v.  Lee,  16  Wis.  484,  4^5. 

17  Rourk  V.  Murphy,  12  Abb.  N.  C.  402. 

18  Todd  V.  Ames,  60  Barb.  4.54,  463. 

19  See  Taggart  v.  Muse,  60  Miss.  S70,  872. 

20  Todd  V.  Lee,  16  Wis.  484,  435. 

21  Pike  V.  Fitzgibbon,  20  Week.  R.  531,  552  ;  ante,  ??  204,  206. 

22  Avlett  V.  Ashton,  1  Mvlne  &  O.  10.5,  111 ;  Radford  v.  Carwile,  1.3 
W.  Va.  57a,  674,  680  ;  ante,  li  205,  206,  208. 

2S  Ohallar  v.  Temple,  3!)  Ark.  2'!<?,  247  ;  Whit^sides  v.  Cannon,  23 
Mu.  457,  474  ;  Phillips  v.  Graves,  20  Ohio  St.  371,  390  ;  5  Am.  Rep.  675. 

24  Girault  v.  Adams,  61  Md.  1,  13. 

25  White-sides  v.  Cannon,  23  Mo.  4.57,  474  ;  supra,  n.  24. 

'   26    Phillips  V.  Graves,  20  Ohio  St.  371,  3'X3  ;  5  Am.  Rep.  675. 

27  Wilburn  v.  Walker,  11  Tex.  .329,  344. 

28  Phillips  V.  Graves,  20  Ohio  St.  371,  300  ;  5  Am.  Rep.  675. 

29  2  Perry  Trusts,  ?  6.54  ;  Jackson  v.  Haworth,  1  Sausse  &  S.  161 ; 
Thompson  v.  Beasele.v,  Kq.  R.  .59. 

30  Vaughan  v.  Vanderstegen,  2  Drew.  16.5,  184. 

31  Copperthwaite  v.  Tuite,  13  Ir.  Eq.  68. 

32  Kerchner  v.  Kempton,  47  Md.  568,  5.S0,  .590  ;  post,  ?  461. 

33  Clerk  v.  Miller,  2  Atk.  379  ;  Callow  v.  Howie.  1  DeGex  <fe  S.  .531  ; 
B"eching  r.  Morphew,  8  Hare,  120  ;  Clive  v.  Carew,  1  Johns.  &  H. 
207  ;  Kerchner  v.  Kempton,  47  Md.  56S,  589. 

34  Wilton  11.  Hill,  25  Law  J.  Ch.  156. 

35  Peacock  )'.  Monk,  2  Ves.  193  ;  Vansilttart,  4  Kav  <fc  J.  70;  Harris 
V.  Mott,  14  Beav.  169. 

.36  Graham  v.  Fitch,  2  DeGex  &  S.  246;  Taylor,  12  Beav.  271; 
Home  V.  Patrick,  30  Beav.  405  ;  Ottway  (>.  Wing,  12  Sim.  90. 

§  212.  Rights  of  husband  or  his  creditors  over  wife's 
equitable  separate  estate.  —  It  is  an  iu.separable  incident 
of  equitable  separate  property  that  the  liusband  has  no 
marital  control  or  dominion  over  it/  though  he  may 
have  certain  bare  legal  rights  as  trustee.'^  He  cannot 
release  an  executor  for  her  separate  legacy,^  and  if  a 
bank  pays  her  separate  money  to  him,  it  must  pay 
over  again  to  her,*  unless  he  has  acted  as  her  agent  in 
fact.^  He  cannot  sue  her  lessees  in  trespass  for  entor- 
H.  &  w. -27. 


^  213  wife's  equitable  estate.  314 

Ing  upon  the  land  leased.*    Nor  can  his  creditors  make 
tliis  property  of  hers  liable  in  any  way  for  his  debts.' 

1  Pollard  V.  Merrill,  15  Ala.  169,  173  ;  ante,  Vi  197,  198. 

2  Fears  r  Brooks,  12  Ga.  195,  l:i7  ;  Jackson  v.  McAliley,  .Spear  Eq. 
303,  30S  ;  40  Ana.  Dec.  620 ;  antt,  |  202. 

3  Windsor  t'.  Bell,  61  Ga.  671,  674  ;  ante,  \  85. 

4  fniversity  v.  Bell,  65  GiX.  528,  530  ;  ante,  I  85. 

5  See  Agency  of  Htsband  for  Wife,  ante,  \l  8-1-88. 

6  Allen  v.  W.ilker,  Law  R.  5  Ex.  187,  190. 

7  Izod  V.  Lamb,  1  Cromp.  &J.  35,  43;  Archer  v.  Rorke,  7  Ir.  Eq« 
478,  481 ;  Nelson  v.  Hollins,  9  Baxt.  5.53, 5.54. 

\  213.  How  the  wife  may  lose  or  extinguish  her  equitable 
separate  estate.  —  If  tlie  wife  joins  witli  lier  trustee  in  a 
breach  of  trust  slie  cannot  afterwards  hold  him  respon- 
sible tlierefor.i  So  she  may  lose  her  separate  estate  by 
not  keeping  it  separate,^  or  by  allowing  her  husband  to 
collect  and  appropriate  it,^  or  by  i^ermitting  the  price 
of  it  to  be  paid  in  his  hands  without  any  understand- 
ing that  he  shall  repay  it;*  but  her  consent  that  her 
husband  shall  have  the  income  does  not  take  away  her 
remedy  against  him  for  the  conversion  of  the  princii^al.^ 
She  does  not  lose  her  rights  by  standhig  silently  by 
while  the  husband  sells  it ;  being  under  his  coercion 
she  is  not  estopped.*  A  legacy  from  her  husband  to 
her  does  not  affect  her  rights  against  his  estate  for  con- 
verting her  property.'  She  canno*  lose  it  by  consent  if 
she  is  a  lunatic.^  And  if  her  husband  obtains  her  con- 
veyance by  fraud,  equity  will  set  it  aside. ^  On  his 
death,!"  or  on  divorce,'^  the  separate  estate  ceases. 

1  Hugrhes  I'.  Wells,  9  Hare,  740,  773.  See  Montford  v.  Cadogan,  19 
Ves.  635,  640. 

2  Buck  V.  Ashbrook,  ,59  Mo.  200,  203  ;  Shirley,  9  Paige,  363,  365. 

3  Andrews,  30  Ala.  144,  157  ;  ante,  \  209. 

4  Chester  v.  Greer,  5  Humph.  26,  34  ;  ante,  \  209. 

5  Dixon,  Law  R.  9  Ch.  D.  587,  .593. 

6  Carpenter,  27  N.  J.  Eq.  .502,  504  ;  poit,  I  417. 

7  Taylor,  4  Jur.  N.  S.  1218,  1220. 

8  Rawloy  v.  L'nwin,  2  Kay  &  J.  139,  142. 


315  avife's  equitablk  estate.  §  214 

9    Fargo  v.  Goodspeed,  87  111.  290,  296  ;  post,  i  405. 

10  Pooley  V.  Webb,  3  Cold.  .599,  602,  603  ;  post,  5  214. 

11  O'Kill  V.  CampbeU,  4  N.  J.  Eq.  13,  15 ;  post,  I  215. 

?  214.  Effect  of  death  on  the  wife's  equitable  separate 
property.  —  Death  dj.stroy.s  the  iiiarriage  status  and  re- 
moves the  reason  for  the  existence  of  separate  property 
of  married  women.' 

1,  Death  of  htisband.  On  the  death  of  the  husband 
the  wife's  disabilities  cease,^  and  the  existence  of  the 
equitable  separate  estate  is  suspended  ^  or  destroyed  ;  * 
the  trust  determines  and  she  takes  tlie  legal  title,^  un- 
less there  are  trustees  named  with  active  duties ;  ^  re- 
straints on  her  powers  of  alienation  are  of  no  force 
while  she  is  discovert,'  and  she  may  deal  with  the 
property  as  if  never  married ;  ^  if  she  marries  again 
witliout  having  disposed  of  the  property,  the  equitable 
separate  estate  and  the  re.straints  revive;^  nor  can  she 
after  her  husband's  death  have  a  trust  providing 
against  any  husband  set  aside, i**  because  she  may 
marry  again."  If  she  has  power  given  her  to  convey 
with  her  husband's  consent,  after  his  deatli  slie  may 
convey  alone.^'- 

2.  Death  of  wife.  On  the  wife's  death  her  equitable 
separate  estate  ceases, i''  the  title  of  Iier  trustees  is  at  an 
end,'^  and  her  husband  lias  tlie  same  rights  as  he  has 
in  lier  general  proportj^ ;  '^  her  personalty  he  takes  as 
administrator,  next  of  Icin,  or  survivor  ;  '^  in  her  realty 
he  has  curtesy. •'  But  tlie  settlement  may  expressly 
continue  the  e.state  beyond  the  wife's  life,^*  and  tlius 
exclude  the  husband's  rights  as  widower.'^  A  trust 
for  her  "forever"  does  not  exclude  such  rights;'-**  but 
one  for  her  and  her  heirs  forever  does,-^'  or  to  lier  and 
after  her  death  to  her  legal  heirs, '^^  the  husband  not 
being  an  "  heir,"  ^  or  to  her  and  her  heii's  and  repre- 
sentatives as  if   she    had    never  been  married.^'    Of 


\  215  -wife's  equitable  estate.  316 

course  he  has  no  rights  in  property  she  has  disposed  of 
within  the  scope  of  her  powers,'*  and  his  rights  are 
subject  to  the  debts  imposed  by  lier  on  the  pioperty.^6 

1  Discussed  in  Stewart  M.  &  D.  \\  ■4o2-l75. 

2  Wilson  V.  McCarty,  55  Md.  277,  2'i:! ;  Stewart  M.  <fe  D  ?  452. 

3  Proley  v.  Webb,  3  Cold.  509,  60:i ;  Beaufort  v.  ColUer,  6  Humph 
487,  492  ;  44  Am.  Dec.  ;S1. 

4  Hemersly  v.  Smith,  4  Whart  120,  123 ;  Smith  v.  Starr,  3  Wliart. 
62,66. 

5  Thomas  v.  Harkness,  13  Bush,  23,  29. 

6  O'Kill  V.  Campbell,  4  N.  J.  Eq.  13. 15. 

7  Prolev  r.  Webb,  3  Cold.  539,  603 ;  Radford  i-.  CarwUe,  13  W.  Va. 
573,  672  ;  aiite,  \  2CM. 

8  Kadford  v.  CarwIIe.  13  W.  Va.  .573,  672. 

9  Tullett  V.  .Armstrong,  1  Beav.  1 ;  4  Mylne  &  C.  377,  395  ;  Proley 
V.  Wfbb,  'A  Cold.  .i'.K),  6():i  ;  Radford  r.  Carwile,  13  W.  Va.  573,  672. 
Contra,  Hamersly  r.  Smith,  4  Whart.  126, 12!).    See  anU,  \  204. 

10  O'Kill  V.  Campbell,  4  X.  J.  Eq.  13,  15. 

11  O'Kill  V.  Campbell,  4  N.  J.  Eq.  13,  15  ;  ante,  5  201. 

12  Proley  v.  Webb,  3  Cold.  .51)9,  602. 

13  Cooney  v.  Woodburn,  .33  Md.  320,  327  ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ?  46fi. 

14  B-^TCV  r.  Lavretta,  63  Ala.  374,  3S0  ;  Wilkinson  v.  Wright,  6  Mon. 
B.  576,  577  ;  ante,  'i  202. 

15  Cases  collected  in  Stewart  M.  <fc  D.  ?  466. 

16  Ward  v.  Thompson,  3  Gill  *  .1.  349,  .^57  ;  Good  r.  Harris.  2  Ired. 
Ej.  630,  632.  See  Malonv  v.  Kennedy,  10  SIni.  2.54;  Proudley  v. 
1-ielder,  2  Mylne  .fe  K.  57  ; 'Stewart  M.  &  D.  ^'i  464,  465. 

17  Ward  v.  Thompson,  6  Gill  &  J.  349,  3-57  ;  Richardson  v.  Stodder, 
100  ilass.  .i2S,  .5:50  ;  ante,  l  157. 

18  Johnstone  ■;•.  Lumb,  15  .Sim.  308;  Cooney  »>.  Woodburn,  3.}  Md. 
320,  327  ;  Spann  v.  Jennings,  1  Hill  Ch.  324,  J^  ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  I  4(i(i. 

19  Brown,  6  Humph.  127, 130  ;  auirra,  n.  18. 

20  Brown,  6  Humph.  127, 130. 

21  Ward  v.  Thompson,  6  Gill  <fe  J.  :M9,  3.57  ;  Waters  v.  Tagewell,  9 
Md.  291,  3(>» ;  Gardenliire  v.  Hinds,  1  Head,  402,  405,406. 

22  Waters  v.  Tagewell,  9  Md.  291,  304. 

23  Waters  v.  Tagewell,  9  Md.  291,  .3a5  ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ?  4.57. 

24  Brown  v.  Johnson,  13  Ala.  232,  233  ;  Hutchins,  11  Md.  29,  37,  39. 

25  Cooney  v.  Woodburn,  33  Md.  320,  327  ;  ante,  \\  203-208. 
20    McKay  v.  Allen,  6  Verg.  44,  49. 

\  215.  Effoct  of  divorce  on  wife's  equitable  separate  es- 
tate.— A  divorce  a  inensa  et  thoro  does  not,  generally 
speaking,  destroy  the  disabilities  of  coverture,  or  make 
the  wife  a  femme  sole,^  and  the  reason  for  equitable 


317  wife's  equitable  estate.  §  216 

separate  property  not  being  removed  the  estate  con- 
tinues ;  2  but  an  absolute  divorce  has  the  same  efiect  as 
the  husband's  death.^  The  effect  is  the  same  whether 
the  husband  or  tlie  wife  be  the  guilty  party.*  No 
divorce  affects  tlie  rights  of  a  wife  under  a  marriage 
settlement,^  unless  a  provision  in  such  settlement  so 
provides.^ 

1  Barber,  21  How.  582,  601 ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ?  431. 

2  Smoot  V.  Lecatt,  1  Stewt.  590,  602 ;  Clark,  6  Watts  &  S.  85,  88  ; 
Stewart  M.  &  D.  H  443,  444. 

3  O'Kill  tT.  Campbell,  4  N.  J.  Eq.  13,  15 ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ?  430, 
11.16. 

4  See  Harvard  v.  Head,  111  Mass.  209,  212  ;  Stewart  M.  <fe  D.  ?  430. 

5  Harris  v.  McElroy,  45  Pa.  St.  216,  220  ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  J  440. 

6  See  Charlesworth,  Law  R.  9  Ex.  33,  40  ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  §§  191, 
440. 

§  216.  Effect  of  modarn  statutas  on  oqiiita'ole  separate 
estates  of  married  woman.  —  Of  course  no  statute  can  dis- 
turb the  rights  of  a  woman  depending  on  a  settlement 
executed  before  its  passage.^  And  statutes  creating 
statutory  separate  estates  do  not  prevent  the  creation 
and  existence  of  equitable  separate  estates,'  or  curtail 
the  jurisdiction  of  equity  tliereover ;  ^  even  in  Alabama, 
where  the  statutory  separate  estate  is  an  equitable  one,* 
the  equitable  separate  estate  exists  side  by  side  with  it.» 
Such  statutes  liavo  been  passed  to  enlarge  and  not  to 
diminish  the  wife's  rights,^  and  though  she  may  have 
a  legal  estate  where  she  had  an  equitable  one  before,^ 
and  unless  restrained  bj''  the  settlement  ^  may  deal  with 
her  equitable  separate  estate  under  a  statute  as  a  mar- 
ried woineii,^  yet  the  fact  that  slie  may  by  sucli  statute 
convey,^"  will,"  contract, i-  or  sue"  does  not  prevent 
her  conveying,!*  willing,i^  charging  her  propertj^'*  or 
suing, ^^  as  an  unmarried  ivoman  in  equity  as  before ;  '^ 
she  may  elect  to  exercise  her  powers  under  the  statute 
or  under  the  settlement. '^  Her  right  to  deal  with  licr 
equitable  separate  proxjcrty,  as  far  as  the  common  law 


§  216  wife's  equitable  estate.  318 

or  statutes  allowed,  has  always  been  admitted,^"  even 
in  those  States  which  denied  her  any  powers  not  con- 
tained in  the  settlement ^i  —  as  in  North  Carolina"  and 
South  Carolina's  —  excepting  Pennsylvania.-'  And  so 
generally  modern  statutes  enlarge  but  do  not  diminish 
tlie  powers  of  Avives  over  their  equitable  separate  es- 
•  tate.^'  Still  the  statute  in  California  requiring  her  con- 
tracts to  be  in  writing,-^  and  that  in  New  York  requiring 
her  husband's  consent  to  her  contracts,^  were  held  ap- 
plicable to  her  charges  of  her  equitable  separate  estate.'* 
How  far  she  has  equitable  rights  over  her  statutory 
separate  estate  is  of  course  a  different  question.^ 

1  Willis  V.  Carlenheacl.  28  Ala.  472,  474 ;  Mnsson  v.  Trigg,  .51  Miss. 
172, 182  ;  ante,  U  13-23. 

2  Short  t'.  Battle,  .52  Ala.  456, 467 ;  Huckabee  v.  Andrews,  :i4  Ala. 
646,  647;  Cannon  v.  Turner,  HI  Ala.  4S:i,  486;  Sniltli,  30  Ala.  64->,  644; 
Pickens  v.  Oliver,  21  Ala.  528,  .5S1 ;  Blevins  v.  Burk,  26  .Via.  2it2,  2!)8 ; 
Snyder  v.  Webb,  3  f  al.  83  ;  Miller  v.  Newton,  23  Cal.  .5.54,  .5fiP  ;  Pomeroy 
V.  Manhattan,  40  III.  3;iS,  402  ;  Armstrong  v.  Kerns,  12  Md.  Law  Rec. 
29,  2!1 ;  62  M(l.  000  ;  Eiphar<ls()n  >■.  Stodder,  100  Ma.ss.  .528.  o;«) :  Devries  v. 
Conklin,  22  Mich.  2.5.5,  2iiO:  Miisscm  i-.  Trigg,  .57  Miss.  172,  ISJ,  183; 
Pippeii  V.  AVesson,  74  X.  ( '.  -i'.rj,  442  ;  Phillips  v.  Graves,  20  Ohio  St.  371, 
3!10,  3!U  ;  5  Am.  Rep.  675  ;  Insuranoe  ?•.  Foster,  3.5  Pa.  St.  134,  )3«,  But 
see  Jlaclav  t\  Love,  2.5  Oal,  Ml ;  Davis  v.  Fov,  7  Smedes  &  M.  64, 
67  ;  f'olvin  1'.  Currier,  22  Barb.  371,  382  ;  Wood,"83  N.  Y.  575,  5711  ;  Yale 
V.  Dederer,  22  N.  Y.  451. 460. 

3  Phillips  1'.  Graves,  20  Ohio  St.  371,  3T0,  .301  ;  5  Am.  Rep.  67.5. 
See  Abraham  v.  Tappe,  RO  Md.  317,  .•!23;  Ilerzberg  v.  S;iehso,  60  Md. 
426  ;  Mitchell  v.  Otey,  26  Miss.  236, 239. 

4  Short  V.  Battle,  52  Ala.  4.58,  467  ;  ante,  J  1.50. 

0    Huckabee  v.  Andrews,  34  Ala.  464,  467  ;  supra,  n.  2. 

6  Phillips  V.  Graves, 20  Ohio  St.  371, 390,  391  ;  5  Am.  Rep.  675  ;  Wit- 
sell  V.  Charleston,  7  S.  C.  88,  101,  102. 

7  Snyder  v.  People,  26  Mich.  2.5.5,  2.59,  2W);  12  Am.  Rep.  302  ;  Col- 
vin  71.  Currier.  22  Barb.  .371,  382;  Yale  v.  Dederer,  22  N.  Y.  451,460; 
AVood,  83  N.  Y.  .575,  579. 

8  Young,  7  Cold.  461,  480 ;  ante,  ?  204. 

9  Dillon  V.  Grace,  2  Schoales  &  L.  456.  462-464  ;  Wright  v.  C.adogan, 
2  Eden,  239,  2.57-2.59;  Phillips  ?'.  Graves,  20  Ohio  St.  371,  3ii0,  391  ;  5  .\m. 
Rep.  675  ;  Cla.\  ton  v.  Rose,  84  N.  C.  106,  101 ;  Witte  v.  Clarke.  17  S.  C. 
313,327;  Young, 7 Cold.  461,480;  Lightfoot  i>.  Boss,8  Lea,3oO,351  ;  Ilaw- 
ley  V.  Troyman,  29  Gratt.  728,  730. 

10  See  Deeds  op  Married  WoifEX,po«<,  J?  .394-^08. 

11  See  Wills  of  Married  Women*,  pr,st.  ??  .340-354. 

12  See  Con-tracts  of  Married  Women-,  po*?,  J^  3.5.5-39.3. 

13  See  S01TS  OF  Married  Women-,  jjosr,  5?  42S-46.3. 


319  wifk's  kquitable  estate.  I  216 

14  Miller  v.  Newton,  23  Cal.  5.54,  566 ;  Potneroy  v.  Manhattan,  40  111. 
3;)8,  402;  Armstrong  v.  Kerns,  12  Md.  Law  Kec.  2ei.  2y;  62  Md.  OUO  ; 
PhilJips  V.  Graves,  20  Ohio  St.  :171,  3h0.  .i91 ;  5  Am.  Rep.  675  ;  ante,  J  20.5. 
In  Stiites  wtiere  she  hii.s  only  such  powers  as  are  given  (ante,  i  20.<) 
she  can  convey  only  under  statute  or  under  power  :  Clayton  v.  Kose, 
87  N.  C.  106.  101). 

15  Buchanan  v.  Turner,  26  Md.  1,  .5-7  ;  ante,  I  208. 

16  Phillips  V.  Graves,  20  Ohio  St.  371,  390,  331 ;  5  Am.  Rep.  675  ;  <x,::.te, 
li  206,  207. 

17  Abraham  v.  Tappe,  60  Md.  317,  323  ;  Herzberg  v.  Sachse,  60  Mil. 
426;  Mitchell  v.  Otey,  23  Miss.  2;{6,  2;59  ;  Phillips  v.  Graves,  20  Ohio  St. 
371,  3y0;  5  Am.  Rep.  675  ;  ante,  i  210. 

JS    Discussed  ante,  H  20:J-210. 

13    Blevins  v.  Buck,  20  Ala.  292,  298. 

20  Dillon  V.  Grace,  2  Schoales  &  L.  456,  462 ;  Young,  7  Cold.  461,  482  ; 
sitpra,  n.  9. 

21  States  enumerated  :  Ante,  ??  203,  205  ;  Gray  v.  Eobb,  4  Helsk.  74, 
77,  is  overruled  by  Lightfoot  v.  Boss,  8  Lee,  350,  351. 

22  Clayton  v.  Rose,  87  N.  C.  106,  109. 

23  Witte  V.  Clarke,  17  S.  C.  313,  327  ;  Witsell  v.  Charleston,  7  S.  C.  88, 
101, 102. 

24  Twining,  97  Pa,  St.  36,  41 ;  Brown  v.  Wright,  44  Pa.  St.  224,  241 ; 
Insurance  v.  Foster,  35  Pa.  St.  134,  136. 

25  Inference  from  above  cited  cases. 

26  Maclay  v.  Love,  25  Cal.  367,  381. 

27  Yale  v.  Dederer,  22  N.  Y.  451,  400. 
2S    Ante,  U  206,  207. 

29    Pippeu  V.  Wesson,  74  N.  C.  437,  442,  443  ;  post,  U  217,  et  seq. 


^  217       wife's  statutory  skparate  estate.  320 

CHAPTER  XIII. 

wife's  statutory  separate  estate.  ^ 

Art.  I.    In  General,  §§  217-219. 
II.    Sources  of,  g?  220-231. 
III.    Incidents  of,  §§  232-243. 

Art.  I.  —  Wife's   Statutory  Separate  Estate  in 
Generaii. 

I  217.    Statutory  separate  estate  defined. 

J  218.    The  statutes  described. 

i  219.    "Property," '•personal  rights,"  etc.,  defined. 

§  217.  Statutory  separate  estate  defined.  —  In  all  the 
States  statutes  have  been  passed  destroying  more  or 
less  the  husband's  coninion-law  rights  in  his  wife's 
property  or  in  portions  thereof,  and  securing  such 
property  to  a  greater  or  less  extent  to  her  own  use  and 
enjoyinent.i  Property  held  by  a  married  Avoman 
under  such  a  statute  is  called  her  statutm-y  separate 
estate,  and  must  be  distinguished  from  her  equitable 
separate  estate  which  is  the  creature  of  equity,'^  and 
may  exist  side  by  side  >\"ith  it.' 

1  Dow  17.  Gould.  .31  CaL  631,  637-ftl6  ;  ante,  i  9. 

2  See  Equit.\ble  Separatk  Estate,  ante,  5?  197-216. 

3  Musson  V.  Trigg,  51  Miss.  172,  1S2, 183 ;  ante,  i  216. 

I  218.  The  statutes  creating  separate  estates  described.  — 
Each  State  has  its  own  married  women's  separate 
property  act,'  and  tlie  dilferent  acts  difler  indetiniteh'. 
Some  merely  secure  the  wife's  property  from  her  hus- 
band's creditors,-  others  make  her  the  legal  owner  of 
it,'  others  give  her  full  capacity  to  deal  Avith  it  as  if 
unmarried.*  The  determination  of  the  effect  and 
meaning  of  these  acts  involves  great  difficulties."  In 
many  States  the  constitution  creates  a  separate  estate 


321  wife's  statutory  separate  estate.        g  219 

for  married  women ;  ^  and  where  the  constitution  says 
'■a  wife's  property  shall  be  protected  from  tlie  debts  of 
her  husband,"  it  is  protected  whether  the  legislature 
passes  a  proper  act  or  not ; '  and  an  act  of  the  legisla- 
ture must  not  conflict  with  the  constitutional  provision,* 
but  is  not  in  conflici  if  it  simply  gives  more  protection." 

1  4c  and  4G  Vict.  c.  75  (Married  Women's  Property  Act,  1882);  Ala. 
Code,  1876,  i^  270.5,  etseq. ;  Ark.  Dig.  1874,  H  4193,  4194  ;  Cal.  Civ.  Code, 
1881,  M  157,  et  neq.;  Colo.  G.  L.  1877,  '<>  1747  ;  Conn.  G.  L.  1875,  p.  186; 
Del.  R.  C.  1874,  p.  479;  Fla.  Dig.  1881,  pp.  754-756;  Ga.  R.  C.  1878,  \  1754; 
111.  R.  a  liSO,  p.  mi;  Ind.  R.  S.  1881,  ^?  5117,  5118,  5130;  Iowa  R.  C. 
1880,  J  2202  ;  Kan.  C.  L.  18SI,  Vt.  3136,  3137;  Kj-.  R.  S.  1881,  p.  531 ;  Me.  R. 
S.  1871,  pp.  4M1,  4'J2  ;  Md.  U.  C.  1878,  pp.  481,  482  ;  Mass.  P.  S.  1882,  818  ; 
Mich.  K.  S.  1882,  \  6205  ;  Minn.  St.  1878,  p.  76!) ;  Miss.  R.  S.  1880,  \  1167; 
Mo.  R.  S.  1879,  ?»  3292,  329.5,  .3296;  Neb.  C.  S.  1881,  p.  »43 ;  Nev.  C.  L. 
1873,  II  152.  153 ;  N.  H.  G.  I>.  1H78,  p.  4-34  ;  N.  J.  Rev.  1877.  p.  fi.36 ;  N.  Y. 
E.  .*<.  18S2,  pp.  23.36,  23:i8  ;  Oh=o  R.  S.  1880,  ^?  .3108,  8109,  31U  ;  Pa.  Pnrd. 
Dig.  187-2-1876,  p.  1005  ;  R.  I.  P.  S.  1882.  pp.  42-2-424  ;  S.  C.  G.  S.  1871,  p. 
441 ;  Tenn.  R.  S.  1873,  ^  -2481 ;  Tex.  R.  8.  1879,  \  -2851  ;  Vt.  R.  L.  1880, 
\<C  2321,  e«  seq. ;  W.  Va.  R.  S.  1879,  pp.  77;}-777  ;  Wis.  R.  S.  1878,  U  2340- 
2M2. 

2  Scliindel.  12  Md.  294,  31.3.  See  Robertson  v.  Wilcox,  36  Conn. 
426,  430 ;  Johnson  v.  Chapman,  35  Conn.  .5.50  ;  Wheeler  v.  Jennings,  16 
Mon.  B.  476  ;  Logan  v.  McGill,  8  .Md.  461,  470  ;  Chapman  v.  Williams, 
13  Gray,  416;  White  v.  Dorris,  35  Me.  181,  187,  188;  Coleman  v.  Salter- 
field,  2  Head,  259. 

3  See  Vreeland,  16  N.  J.  Eq.  512,  524. 

4  See  Mich.  R.  S.  1882,  J  6295. 

5  See  statutes  discu.ssed  ante,  ??  12-23. 

6  See  Ala.  Const,  art.  10,  §  6;  Ark.  Const,  art.  12,  \  6. 

7  See  Kemp  v.  Clark,  Md.  Law  Rec.  April  19, 1884  ;  Md.  Ct.  App. 
Oct.  Term,  18S4. 

8  Pelzer  v.  Campbell,  15  S.  C.  581,  .589,  ."94. 

9  Pelzer  v.  Campbell,  15  .S.  C.  581,  591,  592. 

?  219.  "Property,"  "personal  rights,"  etc.,  defined. — 
The  meaning  of  the  word  "  property,"  in  such  clauses 
as  "a  married  woman's  property  shall  be  held  by  her 
as  a.femme  sole,''''  has  been  much  discussed.^  It  is  said 
not  to  include  mere  contingent  interests,'  but  it  does 
include  corporeal  and  ineorporeal,^  animate  and  inani- 
mate,* property ;  it  includes  choses  in  action  ex  con- 
tractu,^ and,  probably,  cho.ses  in  action  ex  delicto;^  it 
includes  money,'  though  when  one  act  forbids  con- 
tracts for  the  payment  of  money  and  another  author- 


§  219       wife's  statutory  separate  estate.  322 

izes  contracts  in  reference  to  separate  property,  a 
married  woman's  note  is  void;^  so  a  mining  interest 
in  a  "lead"  is  property.^  Sometimes  a  statute  gives  a 
married  woman  as  lier  separate  property  any  riglit  of 
action  growing  out  of  the  violation  of  her  "  personal 
rights."  1"  Assault  and  battery  is  such  a  violation,"  so 
is  enticing  away  her  liusband,^^  though  the  latter  is  not 
an  injury  to  her  person  or  character.'^  When  her 
"household  furniture"  is  hers  by  statute,  this  term 
includes  a  sewing  machine  "  and  a  piano.^5  though  this 
seems  to  depend  on  the  intent  of  the  legislature  and 
nature  of  the  statute  ;'^  so  that  under  attachment  laws 
the  term  has  been  held  not  to  cover  pianos, i'  paintings,'* 
or  trunks.  1^ 

1  See  cases  cited  in  Lawson's  Concordance. 

2  Bering  v.  Kynaston,  Law  R.  6  Eq.  210,  214. 

3  Smilie  v.  Siler,  35  Ala.  88,  95  ;  Selden  v.  Bank,  G9  Pa.  St.  424,  425. 

4  Gans?'.  Williams,  62  Ala.  41,43. 

5  Nicholson  i'.  Drurv,  Law  R.  7  Ch.  D,  48,  53,  54  ;  Barton,  32  Md. 
212,  224, 225  ;  Kemp  v.  Clark,  Md.  Law  Rec.  Apr.  iw,  I8S4 ;  S.  C.  on  ap- 
peal, Md.  Law  Rec.  Feb.  28.  1SS5  ;  Cooper  v.  Alger,  51  N.  H.  172,  175  ; 
Vreeland,  Ifi  N.  J.  Eq.  512,  522;  Selden  v.  Bank,  69  Pa.  St.  424,  425; 
Bennett  v.  Held,  4  Heisk.  440,  444  ;  Williams  v.  Lord,  75  Va.  390,  398  ; 
Gibson,  43  Wis.  23,  35  ;  28  Am.  Rep.  527  ;  po.it,  |  229. 

6  See  ]iro.  Berger  r.  Jacobs,  21  Mich.  215, 220,221  ;  Leonard  v.  Pope, 
27  Mich.  145, 146 ;  Mann  v.  Marsh,  21  How.  Pr.  372,  376  ;  Clark  v.  Har- 
lan, 1  Cin.  Rep.  418,423;  Westlake,  34  Ohio  St.  621.  6;!3;  32  Am.  Hep. 
397  ;  Stevenson  ?).  Morris,  37  Ohio  St.  10, 17  ;  cases  supra,  n.  5.  Contra, 
Ballard  v.  Rnssell,  33  Me.  196, 197 ;  51  Am.  Dec.  620  ;  Laughlin  v.  Eaton, 
54  Me.  156,  160  ;  Gibson,  43  Wis.  23,  33  ;  28  Am.  Rep.  527;  post,  I  230. 

7  Mitchell,  35  Mi.ss.  108, 114. 

8  Butler  v.  Baber,  51  Cal.  178, 179. 

9  Cheuvete  t».  Mason,  4  G.  Greene,  231,238,  239.  * 

10  See  Ohio  R.  S.  laSO,  ??  3108,  3109,  3111. 

11  Stevenson  v.  Morris,  37  Ohio  St.  10, 17. 

12  Clark  v.  Harlan,  1  Cin.  Rep.  418,  423. 

13  Logan,77Ind.  .558,  564,  .t65. 

14  Von  Storch  v.  Winslow,  13  R.  I.  23,  24  ;  43  Am.  Rep.  10. 

15  Von  Storch  v.  Winslow,  13  R.  I.  23,  24  ;  43  Am.  Rep.  10. 

16  30  Alb.  L.  J.  25  ;  Richardson  v.  Hall,  124  Mass.  2.37. 

17  Dunlap  v.  Edgerton,  30  Vt.  224,  22a ;  Tanner  v.  Billings,  18  Wis. 
163,  166. 

18  Lea,  30  Alb.  L.  J.  25  ;  Pa.  Com.  Pleas,  June  28, 1884. 

19  Towns  V.  Pratt,  33  N.  H.  .345. 


323  STATLTOr.Y    SI^PAUATK   PUOPERTY.      ^^  220-221 


Art.  II. — Sources  op  Statutory  Separate  Property. 

5  220.  Modes  of  acquisition,  generally, 

J  221.  Owner!  at  time  of  marriage. 

f  222.  Acquired  in  any  manner. 

J  223.  Acquired  by  purchase. 

J  224.  Acquired  by  gift  or  grant. 

§  225.  Acquired  by  devise,  bequest,  descent,  distribution. 

i  226.  Acquired  by  excliango. 

§  227.  Acquired  by  increase. 

i  228.  Acquired  bj'  services  or  trade. 

^  229.  Acquired  by  contract. 

i  230.  Acquired  by  tort. 

?  231.  Acquired  jointly  with  husband. 

^  220.  Modes  of  acquisition  of  statutory  separate  prop- 
erty, generally.  —  Some  statutes  provide  that  a  married 
woman  shall  hold  "  her  property  "  lo  her  sole  and  sepa- 
rate use,'  but  most  of  them  define  more  or  less  specific- 
ally what  property  she  sliall  so  hold,^  as  property 
owned  at  the  time  of  her  marriage,  or  afterwards  ac- 
quired by  gift,  grant,  devise,  bequest,  descent,  in  course 
of  distribution,  in  course  of  trade,  by  her  services,  in 
0.nj  manner,  etc.*  The  naming  of  one  mode  excludes 
property  acquired  in  other  modes.*  Property  is  "  ac- 
quired" if  it  is  paid  into  jjossession  after  tlie  passage  of 
the  statute,  though  owned  as  a  chose  in  action  before  ;* 
and  the  word  "held"  means  simply  "owned,"  and 
applies  to  equitable  estates  and  choses  in  action.* 

1  See  Arli.  Dig.  1874,  ?  4193. 

2  See  Md.  R.  C.  1878,  p.  481,  U  '9,  20. 

3  See  statutes  cited  ante,  §  218  ;  post,  ?§  222-231. 

4  See  CoNSTRiTCTiox  OF  Statutes,  ante,  1 16. 

5  White  v.  Waite,  47  Vt.  502,  507.    Consult  a«te,  ??  lS>-'-3. 

6  Witsell  V.  Charleston,  7  S.  C.  88,  99, 100. 

3  221.  Property  owned  at  the  time  of  marriage. — There 
is  a  general  agreement  among  the  statutes  in  making 
property  of  a  married  woman  owned  at  the  time  of  her 


^J  222-223       STATUTORY   SKPARATK    PROPKRTY.  324 

marriage  her  separate  property  i  A  right  in  an  undis- 
tributed estate  existing  at  the  time  of  marriage  is  piop- 
erty  owned  or  "  held  "  ^  at  the  time  of  marriage,^  thougli 
when  it  comes  into  her  possession  it  is  also  property 
acquired  during  coverture.* 

1  See  ante.  ?  218  ;  Vandevoort  v.  Gould,  3S  X.  Y.  630;  Prevot  v. 
Lawrence,  51  X.  Y.  21U. 

2  Witsell  V.  Charleston,  7  S.  C.  83,  99, 100. 

3  Sharp  v.  Burns,  35  Ala.  6.53,  6«2. 

4  White  V.  Waite,  47  Vt.  502,  507. 

?  222.  Property  acquired  "in  any  manner."  —  It  has 
been  held  that  a  statute  giving  a  wife  her  propertj' 
acquired  "  in  any  manner  "  covers  a  riglit  of  action  for 
personal  injuries  to  herself,'  and  personalty  obtained 
from  a  .sale  of  realty;*  but  generally  tliese  words  add 
nothing  to  the  word  "  property."^ 

1  Berger  v.  Jacobs,  21  Mich.  215,  220,  221  ;  pryst,  5  230. 

2  Brevard  v.  Jones,  50  Ala.  221,  238. 

3  Property  defined,  ante,  J  219. 

g  223.  Property  acquired  by  purchase. — At  common 
law  a  sale  or  grant  (tliese  words  being  equivalent  to 
"purchase"')  to  a  married  woman,  could  be  avoided 
by  her  husband,^  and  was  not  good  as  against  her 
unless  ratified  by  her  after  the  dissolution  of  cover- 
ture ;"  speaking  generally,  therefore,  a  married  woman 
could  not  purchase  at  common  law.*  A  .statute  secur- 
ing to  a  married  "woman  property  acquired  by  her  by 
purchase,  gives  her  the  power  to  pnrchase,^  and  as  an 
incident  of  this,  to  purchase  on  credit^ — though  this 
seems  to  have  been  denied  in  .some  cases,^  But  such  a 
statute  does  not  enable  her  to  make  an  executory  con- 
tract for  the  purchase  of  property  ;8  nor  does  it  enable 
her  to  make  a  personal  contract  for  the  purchase 
money;'  though,  whether  on  the  ground  that  the  con- 
tract for  the  purchase  money  is  a  contract  with  refer- 


325  STATUTORY   SKPARATE    PROPERTY.  g  22-3 

enee  to  her  separate  propeiij'  i"  or  is  intended,  to  be  a 
charge  upon  it,"  or  on  other  grounds, '^  property  pur- 
chased by  her  is  always  liable,  at  least  in  equitj',  for 
the  purchase  money. ^^  So  it  is  bound  in  her  hands  by 
an 3'  conditions"  or  encumbrances '^  attached  to  it.  So, 
under  special  statutes  her  promissory  note  for  the  pur- 
chase money,!^  and  her  mortgage  securing  ii  have  been 
held  good"  at  law.i*  When  she  may  trade  she  may 
purchase  goods  for  her  trade  ;  •'  when  she  may  earn  she 
may  purchase  a  machine  to  sew  upon  or  a  piano  to  give 
lessons  upon. 2"  The  purchase  of  an  imijlement  for  her 
separate  farm,^^  or  of  a  horse  for  farming  purposeS,-- 
(but  not  for  pleasure  riding-''),  or  of  furniture  for  her 
house  ^  (but  not  of  supplies  for  the  family ^s),  is  a  contract 
relating  to  her  separate  property.^  A  co-purchaser  is 
bound,  whether  she  is  bound  or  not.^  She  may  equally 
well  make  her  purchase  through  an  agent.^  But  as 
against  her  husband's  creditors  slie  must  show  that  the 
purchase  was  made  out  of  her  own  funds  or  upon  h^r 
own  credit ;  ®  this  is  what  is  meant  wlien  it  is  said  that 
she  cannot  purchase  on  credit.^'^  She  may  purchase 
her  husband's  lands  at  public  sale.^^  An  exchange  is 
really  a  purchase.^^ 

1  Abbev  r.  Devo,  +4  Barb.  374,  373  ;  Dayton  r.  Walsh,  47  "Wis.  113, 
119  ;  32  Am.  Rep.  7.57  ;  iw*f,  i  '224. 

2  Bedford  r.  Burton,  lOG  V.  S.  ."^JS,  :>>3  ;  Patterson  r.  Robinson^  25 
Pa.  St.  81,82. 

3  Hunter  v.  Duvall,  4  Bush,  4.T.S,  430  ;  im.tt,  ?  .3f.fi. 

4  Hj'clrick  v.  Burke,  30  Ark.  l'-4  ;  Alvarsou  v.  Jones,  10  Cal.  9. 

5  Tiemever  v.  Turnqnist,  So  N.  Y.  516,  521;  39  Am.  Rop.  674; 
Krouskop  i:  Shoutz,  .11  Wis.  204,  210;  Davton  )•.  Walsh,  47  Wis.  113. 
1 14,  118  ;  32  Am.  Rep.  7.",7.  See  Warner  v.  Dovo,  .33  .Md.  .571 ;  Allen  v. 
Fuller,  118  Ma.ss.  402,  403 ;  Hyler  v.  Atwood,  26  X.  J.  Eq.  504,  507. 

6  Shields  v.  Kevs,  24  Iowa,  208,  313  ;  Devries  r.  Conklin,  22  Mich. 
2.5.5,  2.59;  Abbev  v.  Devo,  44  Barb.  374,  37:1  :  Knapp  ?\  Smith,  27  X!  V. 
277,  279  ;  Frecking  r.  Rolland,  53  N  Y.  425  ;  Tiemever  v.  Turnquist,  85 
X.  Y.  516,  521,  522  ;  39  Am.  Rep.  674  ;  Cramer  v.  Hansford,  53  Wis.  8.5, 
87.  Consult  Carpenter  v.  Mitchell,  50  III.  470,  473;  54  111.  126;  John- 
son r\  Chissom,  14  Ind.  415;  Spaulding  v.  Dav,  10  Allen.  9fi,  100;  Rat- 
olllTe  1'.  Collins.  35  Miss.  5Sl ;  Porterfield  r.  Butler,  47  Miss.  165,  176; 
12  Am.  Rep.  329  ;  Johr.son  v.  Houston, 47 Mo.  227  ;  Coffin  v.  Morrill,  22 

II.  &  W.  — 28. 


g  223  STATUTORY   SEPARATE   PROPERTY.  326 

N.  H.  352  ;  Baringer  v.  Stiver,  49  Pa.  St.  129,  1.32 ;  Robinson  v.  Wal- 
lace, 3D  Pa.  St.  12P,  1.32 ;  Bucli  v.  Gibson,  37  Vt.  65.3. 

7  Dunning!'.  Pike,  46  Me.  461,463.  See  MUler  r.  Handy,33  La.  An. 
160, 167. 

8  Jones  v.  Crostliwaite,  17  Iowa,  393,  402. 

9  Doyle  v.  Orr,  51  Miss.  229,  232. 

10  Labaree  v.  Colby,' 90  Mass.  .vn,  560  ;  Williamson  r.  Dodge, 5  Hun, 
498,  499  ;  Krousliop  i'."Shoutz,  51  Wis.  204,  214. 

11  Bedford  v.  Butler,  106  V.  S.  3-38,  3.39,  340 ;  Doyle  v.  Orr,  51  Miss. 
229,  2:e. 

12  Patterson  v.  Robinson,  25  Pa.  St.  81,  83  ;  inft-a,  notes,  13, 16, 17, 18. 

13  Pemberton  v.  Johnsoti,  46  Mo.  ^2,  »«.  See  Slilelds  v.  Keys,  24 
Iowa,  298,  313  ;  jiost,  U  238,  407. 

14  Bedford  v.  Lurton,  106  V.  S.  81,  83  ;  Patterson  v.  Robinson,  25 
Pa.  St.  81,  83. 

15  Brewer  v.  Maurer,  38  Ohio  St.  51.3,  553  ;  43  Am.  Rep.  4.36.  See 
Brown  xk  Hermann,  14  Abb.  Pr.  394 ;  supra,  n.  15. 

16  Allen  v.  Fuller,  118  Mass.  402,  403. 

17  Hyler  r.  Atwood,  26  X.  J.  Eq.  .501,  .507. 

18  Krouslcop  V.  Shontz,  51  Wis.  204,  214,  216.  As  to  liability  of  wife 
and  her  property  for  purchase  monev,  see  Bedford  v.  Burton,  106 
V.  S.  3.38,  3;J9;  Chilton  v.  Bralden,  2  Black,  458  ;  Smith  v.  Doe,  56  Ala. 
456;  Trieber  v.  Stover,  30  Ark.  727,  729;  Donovan.  41  Conn.  .S51,  .5.54  ; 
Boland  v.  Klink,  63  Ga.  447  ;  Carpenter  v.  Mitchell,  54  111.  126  ; 
Kyper  v.  Skirt,  34  Ind.  249,  2.50  ;  Hunter  v.  Duvall,  4  Bush,  438  ; 
Fowler  r.  Jacob,  Md.  Ct.  App.  Oct  Term,  1883 ;  Alien  v.  Fuller,  118 
Mass.  402, 40! ;  Spaulding  ?'.  IJav,  10  Allen,  98;  Bosford  r.  Pearson,  7 
Allen.  5114, 5)6;  Stewart  r.  Jenkins,  6  Allen,  300  ;  Tillman  v.  Shackle- 
ton,  15  Mich.  447.  4.56  ;  Doyle  v.  Orr,  51  Miss.  229,  2:f2  ;  Nicholson  v. 
Heiderhoff,  .50  Miss.  .56  ;  EskrWge,  51  Miss.  .522;  Pemberton  v.  John- 
son, 46  Mo.  .^2,  313  ;  Bruner  v.  Wheaton,  46  Mo.  3C3  ;  Messer  v.  Smith, 
58  X.  H.  298,  209  ;  Albin  v.  Lord,  39  :X.  H.  196 ;  Armstrong  v.  Ross,  20 
X.J.Eq.l09;  Tiemever?'.  Turnquist,  8.5  N.Y.  516,521;  39  Am.  Rep.  674  ; 
Brewer  v.  Maurer,  38  Ohio  St.  54.3,  5.53;  43  Am.  Rep.  4.36;  Sixbee  r. 
Bowen,  91  Pa.  St.  149;  Willingham  r.  I^eake,  7  Baxt.  453  ;  Bugbee  r. 
Blood,  48  Vt.  500  ;  Cramer  v.  Hansford,  5.J  Wis.  85, 87. 

19  Trieber  v.  Stover,  SO  Ark.  727,  730 ;  Krouskop  v.  Shontz,  .51  Wis. 
201. 217  ;  post,  I  475. 

20  Dayton  v.  Walsh,  47  Wis.  113,  120;  32  Am.  Rep.  7S7.  See  Wil- 
liamson V.  Dodge,  5  Hun,  4J8,  499. 

21  McCormick  v.  Holbrook,  22  Iowa,  487, 489. 

22  Mitchell  1'.  Smith,  .32  Iowa,  484,  487. 

2:1    McDermott  v.  Garland,  1  Mackey,  496. 

24  Harman  ik  Garland,  1  Mackey,  1. 

25  Schneider  v.  Garland,  1  Mackey,  3.tO. 

26  These  contracts  discussed  ante,  H  206, 207  ;  pott,  i  .373. 

27  Robinson,  1 1  Bush,  174, 179  ;  post,  H  368,  .382,  40S. 

28  .Southard  v.  Plummer,  36  Me.  84,  85;  Abbey  v.  Devo,  44  Barb. 
374,  379  ;  ante,  U  84-88  ;  post,  i  364. 

29  McMasters  v.  Edgar,  22  W.  Va.  671,  676.  See  Curry  v.  Bott,  53 
Pa.  St.  400, 403  ;  Bower,  63  Pa,  Su  126, 138 ;  atiU,  U  119-121. 


327  STATUTORY   SEPARATE   PROPERTY.  I  224 

30  Hopkins  v.  Carey,  23  Miss.  54,  58  ;  supra,  n.  7. 

31  Blum  V  Harrison,  50  Ala.  16  ;  Baker,  22  Minn.  265;  Bowser,  82 
Pa.  St.  57. 

32  Elder  v.  Cordray,  bi  111.  244,  245 ;  post,  ?  226. 

§  224.  Property  acquired  by  "gift"  or  "grant."— The 
words  "gift  and  grant"  include  all  modes  of  acquiring 
property  by  deed  ;  ^  "  gift  "  includes  a  grant  of  realty  ;  ^ 
"grant"  applies  equally  to  personalty ;3  "grant"  in- 
cludes a  deed  of  bargain  and  sale.*  A  gift  of  jjei-son- 
alty  may  be  by  parol.^  A  lease  is  property  obtained  by 
gi-ant.®  Whether  a  deed  creates  an  equitable  separate 
or  a  statutory  separate  estate  depends  upon  its  word- 
ing;'  unless  the  intent  to  exclude  the  husband's  rights 
clearly  apj^earS;  a  statutory'  separate  estate  is  created.^ 
Deeds  from  the  husband  to  the  wife  are  often  unlaw- 
ful,* but  generally  if  creditors  are  not  prejudiced'"  they 
are  good  in  equity,''  and  may  be  good  at  law.'^  At 
common  law  a  husband  might  refu.se  a  gift,  or  grant  to 
his  wife,'-^  and  if  he  accepted  one  he  had  his  marital 
rights  therein;'*  this  did  not  apply  to  .settlements  for 
her  equitable  separate  use;'^  under  the  statutes  she 
takes  the  legal  title  as  fully  as  she  took  the  equitable 
before  under  sucli  settlements.'^  The  instrument  need 
not  contain  words  showing  the  property  was  meant 
to  be  "  separate  "  ; "  where  the  contrary  has  been  held, 
this  was  due  to  the  peculiar  wording  of  some  early 
statutes.'^ 

1  Huyler  v.  Atwood,  26  N.  J.  Eq.  5(M,  505  ;  Lyon  v.  Green,  42  Wis. 
532,536. 

2  Libby  v.  Chase,  117  Mass.  105, 106. 

3  Spaulding  v.  Day,  10  Allen,  96,  98  ;  Abbey  t'.  Deyo,  44  Barb.  374, 
379. 

4  Lyon  c.  Green,  42  Wis.  532,  535. 

5  Tlnslev  V.  Roll,  2  Met.  (Kv.).')09,  510.  .See  Walton  r.  Broaddus, 
6  Bush,  328,  329  ;  Ewing  v.  Helm,  2  Tenn.  Ch.  368,  369. 

fi    Darbv  i'.  Callaghan,  Ifi  N.  Y.  71,  75.    See  Vandevoort  v.  Gould, 
36  N.  Y.  639  ;  Dayton  v.  Walsh,  47  Wis.  113,  120  ;  32  Am.  Rep.  757. 
7    Prout  V.  Roby,  15  Wail.  471,  474  ;  ante,  I  200. 


II  225-226      STATUTOKY   SKPAllATK   PROPERTY.  328 

8  TJpplncott  V.  Mitchell,  94  U.  761.  768,  770.  See  William.s,  68  Ala. 
405,  406  ;  Swain  v.  Duane,  48  Cal.  358,  360  ;  ante,  5  216. 

9  See  Jenkins  v.  Flinn,  37  Ind.  343  ;  Tovvlo,  114  Mass.  167  ;  ante, 
U  40-46,  12.5. 

10  Discussed  ante,  H  113-118. 

11  Barron,  24  Vt.  375,  398,  399  ;  ante,  \  42. 

12  Burdeno  v.  Am  perse,  14  Mich.  91,  97  ;  ante,  ?  43. 

13  Patterson  v.  Robinson,  25  Pa.  St.  81,  82 ;  ante,  I  2-23. 

14  Kleake  v.  Koeltze,  75  Mo.  239,  243  ;  ante,  H  148,  157,  170, 176. 

15  Pollard  v.  Merrill,  15  Ala.  169,  173  ;  ante,  5?  197-216. 

16  Clawson,  25  Ind.  229,  231 ;  post,  §J  232,  et  seq. 

17  Sims  V.  Rickets,  35  Ind.  181,  192,  193  ;  9  Am.  Rep.  679  ;  Stone  v. 
Gazzam,  46  Ala.  26;),  273. 

18  See  Hoyt  v.  Parks,  .39  Conn.  .3.57,  360,  .361  ;  Merrill  v.  Bullock,  105 
Mass.  486,  493  ;  Leighton  v.  Sheldon,  16  Minn.  243. 

^  225.  Property  acquired  by  devise,  bequest,  descent, 
distribution.  —  A  lai^-sed  legacy  which  goes  as  directed 
by  statute  is  not  property  acquired  bj'  devise,  bequest, 
descent,  or  distribution.'  A  wife's  share  before  distri- 
bution is  property,'^  and  if  owned  at  the  time  of  her 
marriage  is  protected  as  property  owned  at  that  time, 
though  she  receive  it  afterwards.^  Property  "  acquir- 
ed" by  distribution  covers  a  share  paid  after  the  pas- 
.sage  of  tlie  statute  tliough  owned  before.* 

1  "Williams  v.  Bailee,  Md.  Law  Rec.  Jan.  14,  1882. 

2  Smilie  v.  Siler,  35  Ala.  88,  95, 

3  Sharp  v.  Burns,  35  Ala.  &53,  662. 

4  White  V.  Waite,  47  Vt.  a»2,  507. 

I  226.  Property  acquired  by  exchange.  —  An  exchange 
is  really  a  purcliase.'  Purchases  with  her  separate 
savings,'-  persontdty  exchanged  for  other  separate  prop- 
erty ,3  money  received  for  her  dower,*  are  separate  prop- 
erty ;  but  it  must  be  remembered  that  when  one  kind 
of  property  is  changed  with  her  consent  into  anotlier  — 
as  wlien  realty  is  clianged  into  personalty  —  she  has 
only  sucli  rights  as  naturally  attach  to  the  latter  kind.^ 
Still,  when  realty  owned  before  tlie  passage  of  tlie  sepa- 
rate 231'operty  act  was  changed  into   personalty  after 


329  STATUTORY   SEPARATE   PROPERTY.  §  227 

the  passage  thereof,  said  personalty  was  held  to  come 
■within  the  statute  ;fi  and  sometimes  a  statute  exprossly 
makes  the  proceeds  of  realtj^  separate  property.'' 

1  Elder  v.  Condray,  54  111.  2J4,  245  ;  Fisk  v.  Wright.  47  Mo.  352 ; 
ante,  'i  22.3. 

2  Merritt  v.  Lyon,  3  Barb.  110, 114. 

3  Pike  V.  Baker,  .53  111.  163, 167 ;  Ireland  i'.  Webber,  27  Ind.  256,  259 ; 
Welch,  63  Mo.  57,  60  ;  Hutchln.s  v.  Colby,  43  N.  H.  159,  160. 

4  Beal  v.  Storm,  26  X.  J.  Eq.  372,  376. 

5  Discussed  ante,  ?  136. 

6  Brevard  v.  Jones,  50  Ala.  221,  238. 

7  Sloan  V.  Torry,  78  Mo.  623,  626. 

?  227.  Property  acquired  by  accretion  (increase). — Tlie 
sprout  savors  of  tlie  root  and  goes  the  same  way,^  and 
the  increase  of  separate  property  is  separate,  whether 
the  statute  says  so  or  not ;  ^  the  products,  rents,  increase, 
and  interest  are  all  separate  property.^  Thus,  the  crop 
of  a  married  woman's  lands  is  hers*  (it  is  " profits "S), 
though  raised  by  her  husband  as  her  agent,*  and 
thougli  the  land  was  bought  by  her  on  credit  and  has 
not  been  paid  for,'  and  it  continues  separate  j^roperty 
thougli  invested  in  horses,  mules,  etc.^  So  the  foal  of  a 
separate  mare,*  calves  of  a  separate  cow,^"  and  the  earn- 
ings of  separate  property  ^^  are  separate  property.  The 
rule  applies  equally  to  realty  and  personalty.'^  though 
while  the  ownersliip  of  the  increase  of  personal  prop- 
erty is  a  natural  incident  of  the  ownersliip  of  personal 
propertj^,'^  this  is  said  not  to  be  the  case  with  real  es- 
tate'* (the  accumulated  rents  of  realty  being  merely 
personal  property'^),  and  on  this  ground  the  naming 
of  tlie  increase  of  realty  in  the  Minnesota  statute  was 
held  not  to  exclude  the  increase  of  personalty,'*  a  con- 
trary decision  having  been  rendered  under  the  statute 
of  Texas.''  A  statute  may  expressly  regulate  the  in- 
crease of  .statutory  separate  property,'^  as  in  Alabama, 
where  the  husband  has  full  power  thereover.'*    Nor  is 


§  223  STATUTORY   SEPARATE   PROPERTY.  330 

a  husband,  unless  guilty  of  fraud  or  breach  of  trust,  or 
by  virtue  of  a  promise,'^"  accountable  to  his  wife  for  her 
rents  and  profits.^^ 

1  Gore  V.  Knight,  2  Vern.  535 ;  Prec.  Cii.  255  ;  ante,  ?  209. 

2  See  Barrack  v.  McCulloiigh,  3  Kay  &  J.  110, 119 ;  Hart  v.  Sorrell, 
11  Ala.  3Sfi,  -lOl ;  CJans  v.  Williams,  62  Ala.  41,  43  ;  Sanford  v.  Atwood, 
44  Conn.  141, 143  ;  Bongard  v.  Core,  82  111.  19,  21  ;  Langford  v.  Greirson, 
5  Bradf.  .361.  .365;  .Stout  v.  Perry.  70  Ind.  501,  .504  ;  Russell  v.  Long,  52 
Iowa.  250,  252  ;  Hanson  v.  Millett,  .55  Me.  184,  189  ;  Hill  r.  Chambers,  30 
Mich.  422,  429;  Williams  v.  MoGrade,  13  Minn.  46,  .52;  Hutchins  t'. 
Colby, 43  N.  H.  159, 161  ;  Merritt  v.  Lyon,  3  Barb.  114  ;  Knapp  v.  Smith, 
27  N.  Y.  280;  Holcomb  v.  Meadville,  92  Pa.  St.  338,  ^i  ;  Nelson  v. 
Holllns,  9  Baxt.  55!,  .5.54  ;  De  Blane  v.  Lynch,  23 Tex.  25,  27  ;  Braden  r. 
Gose,  57  Tex.  37,  40;  Dayton  v.  Walsh,  47  Wis.  113,  118;  32  Am.  Rep. 
7.57.  But  see  Bank  v.  Barnes,  2  Smedes  <fe  M.  165  ;  Beatty  v.  Smith,  2 
Smedes  &  M.  567. 

3  Bongard  v.  Core,  82  111.  19,  21. 

4  Stout  V.  Perry,  70  Ind.  501,  504  ;  De  Blane  v.  Lynch,  23  Tex.  25,  27. 

5  Stout  V.  Perry,  70  Ind.  501,  .504. 

6  Langford  v.  Greirson,  5  Bradf.  361,  .365 ;  Russell  v.  Long,  .52  Iowa, 
250,  252  ;  ante,  ?  87. 

7  Dayton  v.  Walsh,  47  Wis.  113, 118  ;  32  Am.  Rep.  757. 

8  Nelson  v.  Hollins,  9  Baxt.  553,  554  ;  ante,  ?  226. 

9  Sanford  v.  Atwood,  44  Conn.  141, 143  ;  Hanson  v.  Millet^;,  55  Me. 
184, 189. 

10  Russell  V.  Long,  52  Iowa,  250,  252  ;  Hutchings  v.  Colby,  43  N.  H. 
159,  160. 

11  Barrack  v.  McCuUough,  3  Kay  cfe  J.  110,  119. 

12  Holcomb  v.  Meadville,  92  P.a.  St.  338,  34.3. 

13  There  being  no  estate  in  personaltj'  originally :  Ante,  ?  136. 

14  Williams  v.  McGrade,  13  Minn.  46,  5.3. 

15  Moreland  v.  Myall,  14  Bush,  474,  478. 

16  Williams  v.  McGrade,  13  Minn.  46,  52,  53. 

17  Braden  v.  Gose,  57  Tex.  37,  40. 

18  Brucev.  Thompson,  25  Vt.  741,747. 

19  Mulhouse  V.  Weeden,  57  Ala.  502,  504 ;  Sterrett  v.  Coleman,  .57 
Ala.  172,  173. 

20  Ante,  ??  42,  45,  129,  209. 

21  Chambers  v.  Richardson,  57  Ala.  85,  89  ;  ayite,  U  42,  209. 

5  228.  Property  acquired  by  trade  or  earned.  —  (A  mar- 
ried woman's  right  to  the  proceeds  of  lier  personal  ser- 
vices has  already  been  treated,^  and  "  married  women 
as  traders"  will  be  discussed  hereafter.'^ 

1  Ante,  ?  6.5. 

2  Post,  ?H04,  et  seq. 


331  STATUTORY   SEPARATE   PROPERTY.      §§  229-230 

§  229.  Property  acquired  by  contract  —  Choses  in  action 
ex  contractu.  —  Property  acquired  by  an  executed  con- 
tract is  acquired  by  purchase. ^  An  executory  contract 
is  a  chose  in  action  ex  contractu  :'^  it  made  by  the  mar- 
ried woman  herself,  her  right  to  enforce  it  depends  on 
her  capacity  to  make  the  contract,^  her  remedies,  on 
the  particular  statutes  of  the  forum,*  and  there  seems 
to  be  no  more  reason  to  question  her  ownership  of  the 
proceeds  than  there  would  liave  been  if  the  contract 
had  been  voluntarily  executed.^  If  a  contract  made  by 
a  third  person  and  acquired  by  her  from  such  person  by 
purchase,  gift,  etc.,  it  is  property  so  acquired,  for  all 
choses  in  action  ex  contractu  are  property.^ 

1  See  ante,  H  223,  224. 

2  For  definitions  of  Choses  in  Action,  consult  ante,  1 171. 

3  See  Contracts  of  Mabrikd  WOiVien,  post,  U  355-393. 

4  Stoneman  v.  Erie,  52  N.  Y.  429,  432  ;  ante,  f  35  ;  post,  §§  427-463. 

5  See  Fuller  v.  Naugatuck,2l  Conn.  567,  573,574.  It  is  property 
gotten  by  "purchase,"  ante,  J  123,  or  " exchange,"  a7ite,  i  226. 

6  Gibson,  43  Wis.  23, 27,  32 ;  28  Am.  Rep.  527  ;  cases  cited  ante,  ?  219. 

§  230.  Property  acquired  by  tort.  —  Whether  a  right 
of  action  growing  out  of  a  personal  tort  to  a  married 
woman  is  "her  property,"  is  disputed.^  On  the  one 
hand  it  is  said  that  it  is  not,^  but  on  the  other,  it  is  held 
to  come  within  the  description  of  "  proi^erty  acquired 
in  any  manner,"  ^  and  there  is  no  doubt  but  that  stat- 
utes may  be  so  framed  as  to  include  it.*  Thus,  when 
a  statute  gives  a  married  woman  as  separate  property 
any  right  of  action  growing  out  of  a  violation  of  her 
"  personal  rights,"  a  right  of  action  for  assault  and  bat- 
tery ,s  or  for  enticing  away  her  husband,^  is  included. 
But  when  a  statute  provides  only  for  injuries  to  her 
person  or  character,  she  cannot  sue  for  enticing  away 
her  husband.^  While  there  hardly  seems  to  be  mucli 
reason  for  refusing  to  call  choses  in  action  ex  delicto 
"proi^erty,"  if    choses  in  action  ex  contractu  are  so 


§  231  STATUTOKY   SEPARATIC   PKOPERTY.  332 

called,^  whether  the  joint  right  of  action  of  husband 
and  wife  in  her  right  is  "  her"  property,  is  a  nice  ques- 
tion :  in  Maryland  at  nisi  prius  it  has  been  decided  in 
the  affirmative.^  Different  principles  govern  rights 
arising  from  torts  to  her  property.  Damages  must  be 
regarded  as  the  natural  increase  of  the  injured  prop- 
erty or  as  given  in  exchange  for  the  property  destroyed 
by  the  injury,'"  and  would  therefore  seem  to  be  prop- 
erty acquired  by  increase"  or  exchange.!'^  The  diffi- 
culty in  this  clahs  of  cases  is,  how  shall  the  wife  sue  ?  '^ 
Damages  awarded  when  her  property  is  taken  for  pub- 
lic use  belong  to  her." 

1  Consult  Chicago  v.  Dunn,  52  III.  2r>0,  263  ;  Logan, V?  Ind.  558,  5&4  ; 
Ballard  v.  Kussell,  33  Me.  196,  197;  54  Am.  Dec.  620;  Lauglilin  v. 
Eaton,  M  Me.  1.56, 160  ;  Kemp  v.  Clark,  Md.  Law  Rec.  Apr.  19,  1884  ; 
Berger  v.  Jacobs,  21  Mich.  215,  220 ;  Leonard  v.  Pope,  27  Mich.  145, 
146;  Mann  v.  Marsh,  21  How.  Pr.  372,  376;  Clark  v.  Harlan,  1  Gin. 
Rep.  418,423;  Westlake,  34  Ohio  St.  621,633  ;  32  Am.  Rep.  397;  Stev- 
enson V.  Morris,  37  Ohio  St.  10,  17  ;  Gibsoji,  43  Wis.  23,  27,  32  ;  28  Am. 
Ilep.  527  ;  eases  cited  ante,  I  219,  notes  5,  6. 

2  Ballard  v.  Russell,  33  Me.  19^1,  197;  M  Am.  Dec.  620;  Laughlin 
V.  Eaton,  54  Me.  156, 100  ;  Gibson,  43  Wis.  23,  33  ;  23  Am.  Rep.  527. 

3  Chicago  v.  Dunn,  .52  111.  260,  263 ;  Kemp  r.  Clark,  Md.  Law  Rec. 
Apr.  19,  18S4  ;  Berger  v.  Jacobs,  21  Mich.  215,  220 ;  Leonard  v.  Pope,  27 
Mich.  145,  146. 

4  Berger  v.  Jacobs,  21  Mich.  215,  220 ;  Mann  v.  Marsh,  21  How.  Pr. 
372,  376. 

5  Stevenson  v.  Morris,  37  Ohio  St.  10,  17  ;  ante,  ?  7G. 

6  Clark  V.  Harlan,  1  Cin.  Rep.  418,  423 ;  ante,  ?  73. 

7  Logan,  77  Ind.  5.58,  564,  565 ;  ante,  ?  78. 

8  But  see  Gibson,  43  Wis.  23,  27-33  ;  28  Am.  Rep.  527. 

9  Kemp  ?'.  Clark,  Md.  Law  Rec.  Apr.  19, 1SS4  (Appealeil  to  Md.  Ct. 
of  Appeals,  Oct.  Term.  1884,  affirmed  Jan.  188.5.) 

10  1  Sedgwick  Damages,  pp.  35,  36. 

U  Discussed  ante,  §  227. 

12  Discussed  ante,  ?  226. 

13  Suits  of  Married  Womkx,  post,  ??  428,  et  seq. 

14  Sharpless  v.  Westchester,  1  Grant,  257,  260. 

§  231.  Property  acquired  jointly  with  har  husband. — 
(The  rights  of  a  married  woman  in  proi^ertj'  acquired 
by  her  jointly  with  her  husband  will  be  discussed 
hereafter  under  "estates  of  both  husband  and  wife."') 

1    I'ost,  ch.  xvi.  ii  302-311.    See  ante,  U  128,  129, 132. 


333  STATUTORY   SEPARATC   PROPERTY.  §  £32 

Article   III.  —  Incidents   of  Statutory  Separate 
Property. 

5  232.  Necessity  of  inventory  —  Proof  of  title. 

i  Z'A  Wife's  power  and  control  over,  generally. 

J  2:34.  Powers  incidental  to  ownership,  etc. 

i  235.  Jurisdiction  of  equity  —Trustee,  etc. 

?  236.  Wife's  disposition  of. 

5  237.  Wife's  contracts  concerning. 

{  2.38.  Wife's  contracts  as  equitable  charges  upon. 

5  23<).  Wife's  contracts  under  statutorj-  authority. 

?  240.  Wife's  wills  of. 

{  241.  Wife's  remedies  concerning. 

i  242.  Liabilities  of. 

J  243.  Eights  of  husband  and  his  creditors  In. 

g  232.  Necessity  of  inventory  —  Proof  of  wife's  title. — 
In  some  States  statutes  provide  that  a  married  woman 
shall  tile  for  record  an  inventor^'  of  her  property,  as  a 
condition  to  its  being  protected  as  separate  estate. i  The 
usual  construction  of  these  statutes  is,  that  they  are 
intended  to  protect  husbands'  creditors,'^  and  that  as 
against  her  husband  himself  a  wife  holds  her  property 
as  separate  estate  whether  she  has  filed  the  inventory 
or  not;*  but  in  Arkansas  the  husband's  common-law 
rights  attach  in  absence  of  the  inventory.*  These  stat- 
utes are  said  to  be  wise  though  harsh.^  The  wife's 
propertj^  is,  under  these  statutes,  liable  for  debts  of  the 
husband  contracted  after  its  acquisition  but  before  the 
filing  of  the  inventory  ;6  so  is  property  taken  in  ex- 
change for  it ; '  and  it  is  liable  for  debts  contracted 
before  it  was  acquired,  if  no  inventory  has  been  filed.^ 
The  burden  of  proof  is  on  the  wife,  when  she  is  living 
with  her  husband,  to  show  her  title  and  the  sources 
thereof,  to  anj^  property  she  claims  as  separate  estate.^ 

1  See  Rev.  Stat,  of  Ark.  1874,  ?  4201 ;  Cal.  1881.  9  lfi.5  ;  Fla.  1881,  pp. 
7M,  75.5  ;  Mass.  1882,  p.  8l;i,  J  U  ;  Miss.  1880,  J  1178  ;  Nev.  1873,  §  153. 

2  Selover  v.  Commercial,  7  Cal.  266,  271 ;  Patterson  v.  Spearman, 
37  Iowa,  43  ;  Jones,  19  Iowa,  236,  240. 


g  233  STATUTORY  SEPARATE   PROPERTY.  334 

3  Jones,  19  Iowa,  236,  240. 

4  Humfries  v.  Harrison,  30  Ark.  79,  88. 

5  Price  v.  Sanchez,  8  Fla.  136, 140. 

6  MiUer  v.  Steele,  39  Iowa,  531. 

7  Pressuall  v.  Herbert,  34  Iowa,  543. 

8  Stewart  v.  Bishop,  33  Iowa,  .585. 

9  Walker  v.  Reariy,  36  Pa.  St.  410,  416,  417 ;  ante,  ?  119. 

§  233.  Wife's  power  and  control  over  her  statutory  sep- 
arate property  generally.  —  Under  separate  property  acts, 
generally,  the  w'fe  is  legal  owner  of  her  property ;  i 
the  right  to  possess  it  is  in  her;-  for  injuries  to  this 
right  she  may  sue  in  her  own  name  ;  ^  and  she  may  so 
recover  the  property  from  the  possession  of  a  third 
party,*  or  even  her  husband.'  Though  she  cannot  pre- 
vent such  use  of  it  by  her  husband  as  is  incidental  to 
his  right  to  live  Avith  her,^  —  for  these  statutes  do  not 
affect  the  marriage  status,'  —  he  has  no  property  in  it,* 
and  no  right  of  action  against  any  one  who  removes  it 
A\-ith  her  consent.*  As  to  her  powers  over  it,  there  are, 
as  in  the  case  of  equitable  separate  property,'"  two 
rules :  one,  that  she  has  no  powers  not  given  her  by 
the  act ; "  the  other,  that  she  has  all  powers  not  denied 
her  by  the  act ;  ''^  and  there  is  the  same  dift'erence  of 
opinion  as  to  whether  the  enumeration  of  certain 
powers  is  a  negation  of  all  others.'^  But  it  seems  to  be 
generally  admitted  that  she  may  by  implir-ation  do  all 
things  necessary  to  such  ownership  and  enjoyment  of 
her  property  as  is  called  for  by  the  act :  '*  the  difficulty 
seems  to  be  to  determine  what  things  are  so  necessary.'^ 
Thus,  while  the  power  to  "  dispose  "  is  said  to  be  very 
different  from  the  power  to  "  use  and  enjoy,"  '*  and  is 
not  included  A\ithin  that  power,''  the  power  to  lease  is, 
as  she  could  not  enjoy  realty  not  occupied  by  her  unless 
she  had  the  power  to  lease  it.'*  And  wliile,  when  her 
property  "  shall  be  owned,  used,  and  enjoyed  by  her 
as  if  unmarried,"  she  cannot  sell  it,'^  yet  when  this 


3So  STATUTOIIY  SEPARATE  PliOPERTY.  ?  233 

property  is  mercliandise,  she  can  sell  it,  as  she  could 
not  otherAvise  enjoy  it.'^"  Her  incidental  powers,'^i  and 
her  power,  respectively,  to  convey,^  to  wili,^  and  to 
contract  concerning,^  her  statutory  separate  propertj', 
are  separately  discussed.  It  is  well  settled  that  these 
statutes  give  a  married  woman  no  personal  capacity,^'' 
but  leave  her,  except  as  to  her  property,  under  the  dis- 
abilities of  coverture.^® 

1  Harding  r.  Cobb,  -{7  Miss.  590,  603 :  Armstrong  v.  Ross,  25  N.  J. 
Kq.  10),  IW  ;  Wilbur  v.  Fradenburgh,  52  Barb.  474. 

2  Scott,  13  Ind.  22.5,  227. 

3  Duress  v.  Horneffer,  15  Wis.  195 ;  infra,  n.  4. 

4  Darbv  i'.  Callaghan,  16  N.  Y.  71,  76.  See  .Scott,  13  Ind.  225,  227  ; 
Jones,  19  Iowa,  238  ;  FaddLs  v.  Woollomes,  10  Kan.  r^i ;  Miller  v.  Baa- 
nUttjr,  109  Mas.'}.  2dJ  ;  post,  Suits  of  ilABHiKD  Womkx,  a  428-463. 

5  Mlnler,  4  Lans.  421.    But  see  ante,  ??  32,  56. 

6  Cole  V.  Van  Riper,  44  III.  5.%  63  ;  ante,  ?  53. 

7  Walker  r.  Beamy,  30  Pa.  St.  410,  414  ;  ante,  ?  13. 

8  Dunnahoo  v.  Holland,  51  Ga.  147,  149  ;  post,  I  241. 

9  Southard  v.  Piper,  36  Me.  84,  85  ;  post,  \  241. 

10  Badford  v.  Carwile,  13  W.  Va,  573  ;  ante,  I  203. 

11  Pelzer  ?'.  Campbell,  15  S.  C.  581,  589.  See  Whitworth  v.  Carter, 
43  Miss.  61,  72  ;  iJunbar  v.  Meyer,  43  Miss.  679,  635  ;  Kavenaugh  v. 
Brown,  1  Tex.  481,  4s4. 

12  Scott,  13  Ind.  225,  227  ;  Hall  v.  Dotson,  .55  Tex.  520,  524. 

13  Pro.  Williamson,  IS  Men.  B.  329,  38.5.  Contra,  Kimm  v.  Weip- 
pert,  40  Mo.  532,  uoG  ;  2  Am.  Rep.  541.    See  ante,  i  204. 

14  Mevers  ik  Rahte,  46  Wis.  655,  L-is.  ■  See  Smith  v.  Howe,  31  Ind, 
233,  234  ;  Batchelder  r.  Sargent,  47  N.  H.  262,  2(ij  ;  Mahoa  v.  Oormley 
24  Pa.  St.  SO  ;  pust,  \\  237,  b73. 

15  See  Naylor  v.  Field.  23  N.  J.  L.  287,  283  ;  post,  ?  2;U. 

16  Cole  V.  Van  Riper,  44  111.  58. 

17  Bressler  v.  Kent,  61  111.  426,  430  ;  14  Am.  Rep.  C7  ;  post,  ?  231. 

18  Parent  v.  Callerand,  64  111.  97,  99  ;  Vandevoort  v.  Gould,  36  N,  Y. 
639,  643. 

19  Moore  v.  Cornell,  63  Pa.  St.  320,  322,  323  ;  post,  I  236. 

20  Wieman  v.  Anderson,  42  Pa.  St.  311,  317,  318. 

21  Beard  v.  Redolph,  29  Wis.  1.36, 141 ;  post,  I  234. 

22  Armstrong  t>.  Ross,  20  X.  J.  Eq.  109,  120  ;  post,  \  236. 

23  Xaylor  v.  Field,  23  N.  J.  L.  287,  288 ;  post,  \  2:;3. 

24  Johnson  v.  Cummings,  16  N.  J.  Kq.  97.  104  ;  post,  \\  2:7,  372,  373. 

25  Albiu  V.  Lord,  39  N.  II.  196,  201,  202  ;  ante,  \  15  ;  post,  \\  320,  371. 

26  McKee  v.  Reynolds,  26  Iowa,  .578,  5S2  ;  Pond  v.  Carpenter,  12 
Minn,  430,  4.J2  ;  Ames  v.  Foster,  42  N.  U.  381,  335. 


§  234  STATUTORY  SEPARATE  PROPERTY.  336 

?  234.  Wife's  powers  incidental  to  ownership,  etc. — 
When  a  married  woman  may  "own,  enjoy,"  etc.,  her 
property,  she  has  all  powers  incidental  to  ownershij:), 
enjoj'ment,  etc'  Under  a  statute  providing  that  "  a 
married  woman  .shall  have  and  hold  her  separate  prop- 
erty as  if  unmarried."  she  ma}''  deal  with  it,^  dispose  of 
it,^  excliange  it,^  and  do  with  it  whatever  any  owner 
may  do  with  his  or  liors  ; »  she  may  employ  counsel  to 
litigate  her  rights  to  it ;«  she  may  contract  for  servants 
and  labor  upon  It,^  for  repairing  it,^  cultivating  it,^ 
selling  its  crops;"'  she  may  lea.se  it;''  and  she  may 
charge  it  with  lier  debts  as  an  incident  to  ownership.'^ 
One  class  of  decisions  goes  to  this  extent,  but  another 
gives  the  statutes  a  much  more  limited  etTect.  It  is 
said,  that  a  statute  which  enables  her  to  use  and  enjoy 
does  not  enable  her  to  dispose  of ; ''  tliat  one  which 
enables  her  to  hold  does  not  enable  her  to  deal  with  ;  '* 
and,  even,  that  she  has  strictly  only  those  powers 
expressly  given  her.'* 

1  See  Cookson  v.  Toolo,  .5:1  111.  51.5,  .519;  Mitchell  v.  Carpenter,  50 
111.470,021;  Williitms  t'.  HuKuniii,  69  111.  214,  219;  18  Am.  Rep.  607; 
Parent  v.  Callerand,  64  111.  !)7,  99;  Scott.  U  Iiid.  22.5,  227;  Smith  r. 
Howe.  31  Ind.  233,  234  ,  Brown  v.  Fifielrl,  4  Mich.  322,  327;  Wieman  v. 
Anderson,  42  Pa.  St.  311,  317,  .318;  Mahon  r.  Gormlev,  24  Pa.  St.  80; 
Krouskopv.  Shontz,  51  Wis.  204,214;  Meyers  v.  Rahte,46  Wis.  6.55, 658; 
post,  I  372. 

2  Beard  v.  Redolph,  29  Wis.  1.36, 141. 

3  Beal  v.  Warren,  2  Gray,  447,  459 ;  Beard  v.  Redolph,  29  Wis,  136, 
141  ;  post,  I  236. 

4  Beard  v.  Redolpli,  29  Wis.  136,  141. 

5  Beard  v.  Redolph,  23  Wis.  1.36,  141, 

6  Leonard  v.  Rogan,  20  Wis.  540,  542  ;  post,  U  362,  363. 

7  Cookson  i>.  Toole,  59  111.  515,  520. 

8  Mitchell  v.  Carpenter,  .50  III.  470,  521. 

9  Mitchell  V.  Carpenter,  .50  111.  470,  521  ;  post,  §  235. 

10.  Mltrhell?'.  Carpenter, 50  111.470,521.  Consult  Wieman  v.  Ander- 
son, 42  X'a.  St.  311,  317. 

11  Parent  v.  Canerand,64  111.97,99;  Mitchell  t>.  Carpenter,  50  III. 
470,  521  ;  Vandevoort  v.  Gould,  36  N.  Y.  639,  643. 

12  Williams  v.  Hugunin,  69  111.  214,  219  ;  18  Am.  Rep.  007  ;  post,  ?  237. 

13  Parent  v.  Callerand,  63  111.  97,  99  ;  Cole  v.  Van  Riper,  44  111.  58  ; 
Swift  r.  lAice,  27  Mr».  2S5,  2S8  ;  N.aylor  v.  Fi^ld,  21  N.  J.  L.  2S7,  288; 
Moore  v.  Cornell,  68  Pa.  St.  320,  322  ;  post,  i  236. 


337  STATUTOKY   SKPARATK   PROPERTY.      §?  235-236 

14  Vreeland,  16  N.  J.  Eq.  512,  524. 

15  Lillard  v.  Turner,  16  Mon.  B.  374,  376  ;  fselzer  v.  Campbell.  15 
S.  C.  581,  589  ;  ante,  I  233. 

§  235.  Jurisdiction  of  equity  over  statutory  separate  estate 
of  married  women  —  Trustee,  etc.  —  Under  some  statutes 
the  husband  is  made  trustee  of  hi^  wife's  statutory  sep- 
arate estate, 1  but  otherwise  she  has  the  full  legal  title 
thereto.^  Accordingly,  it  is  held  that  her  charges  there- 
upon are  valid  at  law,*  and  that  her  remedies  and  lia- 
bilities relating  thereto  are  to  be  asserted  or  enforced 
in  courts  of  law.'*  But  here,  ai  ail  through  tliis  sub- 
ject, there  is  a  contrary  view  ;  in  some  cases  it  is  held 
that  a  married  woman  cannot,  without  express  statu- 
tory authority,  sue  or  be  sued  as  a  single  woman  ;  ^  and 
that  unless  the  common-law  procedure  is  conformed 
to,  she  must  sue  or  be  sued  in  equitj'."  In  most  States, 
however,  at  present,  the  statutes  expressly  state  how 
married  women  are  to  sue  or  be  sued.' 

1  Alexander  v.  Saulsbury,  37  Ala.  .37-5,  377  ;  ante,  U  1''0,  202. 

2  Harding  w.  Cobb-,  47  Jliss.  633,  C03  ;  ante,  i  233. 

3  Krouskop  v.  Shontz,  51  Wis.  204,  214.  S.  P.  Mitchell  ?>.  Carpen- 
ter, 50  III.  470,  5J1 ;  Cookson  v.  Toole,  .5'»  111.  5:5,  51J  ;  Williams  v. 
Hugunin,  (i:»  111.  214,  21'J ;  18  Am.  Rep.  607  ;  Albiu  v.  Lord,  B9  N.  H. 
lUP,  201 ;  Meyers  v.  Rahte,  46  Wis.  655,  fi.58. 

4  Cookson  V.  Toole,  59  111.  515,  522  ;  supra,  n.  3. 

5  Roarers  v.  Ward,  8  Allen,  .3S7,  .390,  .301  ;  Ki-i?  v.  Mittalborger,  .50 
Mo.  lf<2,  18) ;  Johnson  v.  Ciiinminss,  16  N.  J.  Kq.  97,  105  ;  Stockton  r. 
Farlev,  10  W.  Va.  173, 175  ;  27  Am.  Hep.  566.  See  Jonefs  v.  Crosthwaite, 
17  Iowa,  393,  402  ;  post,  U  237,  240. 

6  Stockton  V.  Farley,  10  W.  Va.  173,  175  ;  27  Am.  Rep.  566  ;  supra, 
n.  5. 

7  Discussed i)os^  Suits  o."?  Makiuku  Womkn-,  H  428,  et  seq. 

I  238.  Wife's  power  to  dispose  of  her  statutory  separata 
property.  —  A  statute  giving  a  married  woman  her  prop- 
erty with  the  ".same  rights  and  powers  as  a  femme 
sole,''  gives  her  the  power  to  dispose  of  the  same  as  if 
unmarried,!  even  by  power  of  attorney  ;2  but  tlie /«.s 
dinponcndi  is  quite  a  different  thing  from  the  jus  ten- 
endi,^  and  though  it  is  said  to  bo  a  nece33ary  incident 

11.  &  W.  -  G9. 


g  2CG  STATUTORY   SEPARATE   PROPERTY.  338 

of  ownership  of  personalty,*  the  same  is  said  not  to 
apply  to  realty  ;^  and,  therefore,  thouL^Ii  of  course  there 
arc  cases  that  hold  that,  unless  expressly  or  impliedly 
restrained  by  the  statute,  a  married  woman  has  all 
the  powers  of  a  femme  sole  with  respect  to  her  prop- 
erty ,6  the  better  oijinion  is,  that  a  married  woman  is 
not  empowered  to  dispose  of  her  property  by  a  statute 
which  enables  her  to  "have,  hold,  and  possess  the 
same  as  if  unmarried,"'  or  which  says  that  it  shall  be 
"owned,  used,  and  enjoyed  by  her  as  if  single,"^  or 
which  gives  it  to  her  "separate  property  with  power 
to  devise."'  In  peculiar  circumstances,  as  in  the  case 
of  merchandise,  the  power  of  disposition  is  a  necessary 
incident  to  the  enjoyment  thereof.^"  When,  moreover, 
the  statute  provides  that  she  may  dispose  of  it  in  a  cer- 
tain mode,  she  cannot  dispose  of  it  in  any  other  Avay  ; " 
nor,  except  when  the  statute  says  that  she  shall  have 
the  same  powers  over  it  which  she  has  over  her  equita- 
ble separate  estate,'^  can  she  make  a  conveyance  good 
in  equity  though  void  at  law.'^  Her  deed  wlien  invalid 
is  absolutelj'  void,^*  even  if  her  husband  lias  abandoned 
her,i^  and  cannot  be  rectified  or  enforced  in  equity, '^ 
even  after  her  husband's  death  ;"  unless  it  is  valid  as 
her  contract  to  make  a  deed  or  as  her  charge  on  her 
estate  for  the  consideration. i^  A  general  power  of  dis- 
position includes  every  form  of  disposition,'"  for  exam- 
ple, a  mortgage.^"  But  deeds  of  married  woman  are 
fully  discussed  in  another  chapter  of  this  work.^^ 

1  Beal  t'.  Warren,  2  Gray,  4-17,  459. 

2  Patton  V.  King,  26  Tex.  6S5,  686;  Beal  v.  Warren,  2  Grav,  447, 
459. 

3  Nay  lor  r.  Field,  2n  N.J.  L.  287,  288.  S.  P.  Cole  ?•.  Van  Riper,  44 
111,  58  ;  Parent  v.  Calleranil,  64  111.  S7,  99  ;  Bressler  v.  Kent,  61  111.  426, 
4:«  ;  14  Am.  Rep.  67  ;  Miller  v.  Wetherby,  12  Iowa,  415,  422, 

4  Brown  V.  Fifleld,  4  Mich.  322,  327 ;  Naylor  ii.  Field,  29  N.  J,  I.. 
287,  288 ;  ante,  I  205, 

5  Naylor  v.  Field,  29  N.  J.  T.,  287,288.  See  Cox  v.  Wood,  20  Ind. 
54,  59  ;  Moore  v.  McMullin,  23  Ind.  78,  73 ;  ante,  \  20.'., 


I 


339  STATUTORY   SEPARATE   PROPERTY.  ^  237 

6  HarrHiig  v.  Cobb,  47  Miss.  590,  60^  S.  P.  Scott,  13  Inri.  225,  227  ; 
Jones  v.  Crosthvvaite,  17  Iovvh,  'i'Xi,  502  ;  Kimia  r.  Weippert,  4t>  Mo. 
Sii,  536 ;  2  Am.  Hep.  5J1  ;  BeurU  v.  lieaolph,  2U  Wis.  136,  141. 

7  Swift  ('.  Luce,  27  Mo.  285,  238. 

8  Moore  v.  Cornell,  68  Pa.  St.  320,  322,  323. 

9  Brown  v.  Fifield,  4  Mich.  322,  326. 

10    Wieman  v.  Anderson,  42  Pa.  St.  311,  317,  318  ;  ante,  §  234. 

U  Williamson,  IS  Mon.  B.  32J,  .3,S5.  S.  P.  Staley  v.  Hamilton,  19 
Fla.  275,  2ya ;  Hartley  i:  Ferrell,  'J  Fla.  :174,  378  ;  Bressler  v.  Kent,  61 
111.  426,  430  ;  14  Am.  Rep.  67  ;  Stevens  i\  Parish,  2!<Ind.  260,263  ;  Scott, 
13  Ind.  225,  227  ;  (irapentjether  ;•.  Feiervary,  9  Iowa,  Ifti,  173  ;  Grove 
V.  Todd,  41  Md.  6  ii,  640;  20  Am.  Rep.  76  ;  Townslev  v.  Chapin,  12 
Allen,  476,  47:) ;  H  irdiiig  v.  Cobb,  47  Miss.  59!),  603  ;  Beckman  c.  Stan- 
lev,  8  Nev.  2.')7,  201  ;  Naylor  v.  Field,  2S)  N.  J.  L.  287,  289;  Armstrong 
V.  Ross.  20  N.  J.  Eq.  10  •,  118,  120  ;  Miller  v.  Hine,  13  Ohio  St.  565,  568  ; 
Tilllnghast,  7  R.  I.  2;Kt,  245. 

12  Hooper  i'.  Smith,  23  Ala.  639,  642. 

13  Stalev  r.  Hamilton,  19  Fla.  275, 2:0  ;  Miller  v.  Wetherby,  12  Iowa, 
4:5,  421  ;  WilJiamsOii,  18  Mon.  B.  32J,  385  ;  supra,  n.  11  ;  post,  ii  396-408. 

14  Rogers  r.  Higgins,  48  III.  211,  216;  Stevens  r.  Parish,  29  Ind.  260, 
263  ;  Grapengether  v.  Fejervar.v,  9  Iowa,  163,  173  ;  Shumaker  v.  John- 
son, 35  luwa,  33,  35 ;  3Iiller  v.  Hine,  13  Ohio  St.  565,  568  ;  supra,  n.  11 ; 
post,  'ii  400-404. 

15  Beckman  v.  Stanley,  8  Nev.  257,  261 ;  2>ost,  ?  394.  Consult  Stew- 
art M.&\i.i  174  ;  pusl,  i  407. 

16  Grapengether  v.  Fejervary,  9  Iowa,  163,  174 ;  supra,  n.  14 ;  post, 
2  4W. 

17  Townsley  v.  Chapin,  12  Allen,  476, 479. 

18  Frostburg  v.  Hamill,  55  Md.  313,  315  ;  post,  U  237,  407. 

19  Smith  V.  \Vllson,  2  Met.  (Ky.)  235,  237. 

20  Hall  V.  Dotson,  55  Tex.  52C,  524  ;  Pond  v.  Carpenter,  12  Minn.  430, 
432,  433. 

21  PosK,  ?§3M-408. 

I  237.  Wife's  contracts  concerning  her  statutory  separate 
property.  —  Separate  property  acts  do  not  enable  a  mar- 
ried woman  to  make  per.sonal  contracts — this  is  uni- 
vei'.sally  admitted. ^  But  tiiree  classes  of  her  contracts 
have  been  recognized  as  binding  on  her  statutory  sepa- 
rate property: 2  (1)  Contracts  which  would  bind  her 
equitable  separate  property ;  -^  (2)  contracts  which  are 
expressly  authorized  by  the  statute  —  as  when  a  statute 
empowers  to  make  contracts  "  relating  to,"  or  "  with  ref- 
erence to,"  her  proi^erty  ;*  (3)  contracts  which  are  im- 
pliedly authorized  by  statute  —  contracts,  without  the 
capacity  for  making  which,  she  could  not  possess,  use, 


g  237  STATUTORY   SKPAKATK   PKOPiiKTY.  3i0 

and  enjoy  her  property  as  it  was  intended,  under  the 
statute,  that  she  should.^  On  some  of  these  contracts, 
the  remedy  is  at  law,^  and  others,  it  is  in  equity;^ 
and  on  still  olliers,  there  are  current  remedies  at  law 
and  in  equity.^  But  the  remedy  and  the  obligation 
must  be  kept  quite  distinct.^  Unfortunately,  the  above 
distinctions  have  not  been  genei'ally  recognized  or 
regarded,  and  it  is  almost  impossible  to  lay  down  rules 
ajaplicable  to  all  the  States.'"  The  burden  is  upon  the 
party  alleging  tliL  liability  of  the  j)roi)erty  to  show  that 
the  contract  is  one  that  binds  it." 

1  O'Daily  ik  Morris,  31  Ind.  Ill,  112  ;  McKee  v.  Keynokis,  26  Iowa, 
573,  582  ;  Pond  !'.  Carpenter,  12  Minn.  430, 432 ;  Ames  v.  Foster,  42  N.  H. 
381,  385  ;  a7ite,  §  15  ;  2J0st,  i  370. 

2  See  distinction  hinted  at :  Bressler  v.  Kent,  61  111.  426,  430  ;  14 
Am.  Kep.  67  ;  Todd  v.  I.ee,  15  Wis.  3Uo,  380. 

3  Johnson  r\  Cummings,  16  N.  J.  K(i.  !)7,  104,  ID".  See  Binlford  v. 
Burton,  106,  U.  S.  338,  33!l,  340;  Donovan,  41  Conn.  .=>.".l,  .>'>7  :  t'ox  v. 
Wood,  20  Ind.  54,  59  ;  Scott,  13  Ind.  225,  228  ;  Shii-lds  r.  Kevs,  24  Iowa, 
2;)8,  313  ;  First  v.  Haire,  36  Iowa,  443,  446  ;  Wicks  r.  Mitchell,  t)  Kan.  80, 
88;  Hall  ?'.  Eccleston,  .37  Jld.  510,  .520;  Pond  v.  Carpenter,  12  Minn. 
430,432;  Doyle  V.  Orr,  57  Miss.  22l),  232;  Seipli  v.  Howland,  23  Mi.ss. 
264,  267  ;  Pemberton  v.  Johnson,  46  Mo.  342,  343  ;  Perkins  v.  Elliott,  22 
N.  J.  Eq.  127,  120  ;  23  N.  J.  Eq.  .526,  534,  .535  ;  Peake  v.  Lebaw,  21  N.  J. 
Eq.  26:i,  282  ;  Wilson  v.  Brown,  14  N.  J.  Eq.  277,  27ii;  Yale  v.  Dederer, 
18  N.  Y.  265,  272,  274  ;  Ballin  v.  Dillave,  37  N.  Y.  .35,  .37!  Corn  v.  Bab- 
cock,  42  N.  Y.  613,  628  ;  Patrick  ?■.  I.ittell,  3(i  tlhio  St.  79,  83  ;  Graves  v. 
Phillips,  20  Ohio  St.  .371,  .3'il  ;  (ilass  cWurwick,  40  Pa.  St.  140,  145  ;  Hall 
V.  Dotson,  5.5  T<'x.  .520,  .524;  .stcjcktoii  r.  Furlcv,  10  W.  Va.  171,175; 
27  Am.  R(>p.  .566 ;  Radford  r.  Carwile,  13  W.  Va.  573,  661,  074.  See 
cases  ante,  H  206,  207  ;  post,  I  2;!8. 

4  Marshall  xk  Berry,  13  Allen,  '43,  45  ;  Plumer  v.  Lord,  5  Allen, 
4ro,  462  ;  West  v.  Laraway,  28  Mich.  464,  465  ;  Batchelder  v.  Sargent, 
47  N.  H.  262,  264  ;  Bailey  v.  Pearson,  29  N.  H.  77,  85  ;  post,  I  239. 

5  Williams  v.  Hugunin,  69  III.  214,  219;  Coolcson  ti.  Toole,  .59  111. 
517,  519;  Mitchell  v.  Carpenter,  .50  111.  470,  521  ;  Smith  v.  Howe,  31  Ind. 
233,  234 ;  Lindley  v.  Cross,  31  Ind.  106  ;  Duren  v.  (Jetchell,  .55  Me.  241, 
248  ;  Albin  v.  Lord,  39  N.  H.  190,  201,  202  ;  Frecking  v.  RoUand,  .5:i  N.Y. 
422,425;  Mahon  v.  Gormlev,  24  Pa.  .St.  80;  Wleman  v.  Anderson,  42 
Pa.  St.  311,  317,  318  ;  Krouskop  v.  Shontz,  51  Wi.s.  204,  214;  Meyers  v. 
Rahte,  46  Wis- fi-5.5,  658  ;  Beard  v.  Redolph,  29  Wi.s.  136,  141;  Leonard 
V.  Rogan,  20  Wis.  .540,  542  ;  Todd  v.  Lee,  15  Wis.  365,  368  ;  post,  i  239. 

6  Leonard  v.  Rogan,  20  Wis.  540, 542  ;  post,  ?  241. 

7  Stockton  V.  Farley,  10  W.  Va.  171,  175  ;  27  Am.  Rep.  566  ;  post, 
?241. 

8  Phillips  V.  Graves,  20  Ohio  St.  371,  389;  5  Am.  Rep.  67.5.  See 
Bradford  v.  (Jreenwav,  17  Ala.  707;  Johnson  v.  Cummings,  16  N.  J. 
Eq.  97,  106  ;  Todd  v.  Lee,  15  Wi.s.  .365,  368  ;  post,  ?  241, 

9  Maclay  v.  Love,  25  Cal.  367,  382  ;  jjost,  i  241. 


311  STATUTORY   SEPARATE    PROPERTY.  §  238 

10  See  more  fully  post,  U  23S,  239,  241. 

11  Tracy  v.  Keith,  11  Allen,  214,  215;  West  v.  Laraway,  28  Mich, 
464,  467  ;  Pollen  v.  James,  45  Miss.  129,  i:a  ;  post,  §  a57. 

§  238.  Wife's  contracts  as  equitable  charges  upon  her 
statutory  separate  estate.  —  When  a  separate  property  act 
gives  a  married  woman  capacity  to  make  certain  speci- 
lled  contracts  with  respect  to  her  property,  or  to  charge 
or  encumber  it  only  bj^  contract  executed  with  certain 
formalities,  it  impliedly  restrains  her  from  making  any 
others,  or  any  without  such  formalities,  even  in 
equity;^  but  the  fact  that  courts  of  law  imply  from 
the  terms  of  a  statute  a  limited  capacity  to  contract, 
does  not  necessarily  prevent  courts  of  equity  from  rec- 
ognizing some  furtlier  capacity.^  And,  though  some 
courts  have  taken,  as  it  is  believed,  the  true  ground, 
that  equity  has  nothing  to  do  with  statutory  sei^arate 
property,'  the  majority  have  held,  that  statutory  estate 
is  bound  by  her  contracts  in  equity  precisely  as  it 
would  have  been  had  it  been  created  by  a  deed  to  her 
sole  and  separate  use  instead  of  by  a  statute.*  Whether 
a  particular  contract  is  binding  on  particular  statutory 
sei^arate  estate,  depends  on  tiie  rule*  which  would 
determine  in  the  State  where  it  was  made,^  whether  tlie 
said  contract  would  be  binding  on  an  equitable  sepa- 
I'ate  estate.'  Thus,  in  New  Jersey  t!ie  contract  must 
be  beneficial  to  her,  or  must  bo  an  express  charge  ;8 
in  Kansas,  anj'-  contract  is  irrebuttably  presumed  to 
have  been  intended  as  a  charge  and  to  be  binding,^ 
etc.^"  Two  limitations  to  this  liability  have  been 
recognized:  (1)  She  cannot  charge  unless  she  can 
convey" — a  rule  which  has  been  questioned, i-  but 
whicli  prevails  as  to  equitable  separate  estate ;  '' 
(2)  if  her  husband's  consent  to  her  conveyances  is 
required,  any  contract  of  hers  to  be  a  charge  must  be 
made  with    his    consent^' — a   rule  also  questioned.^' 


I  233  STATUTORY   SEPARATE   PROPERTY.  342 

There  are  cases,  as  suggested  above,  which  deem 
charges  as  indirect  conveyances,  and  will  not  recognize 
them  unless  executed  witli  all  the  formalities  required 
of  a  conveyance.'^  A  power  to  convey  always  includes 
a  power  to  charge." 

1  Staley  r.  Hamilton,  lo  Fla.  275,  295  ;  LiHard  r.  Turner,  16  Mon. 
B.  ?74,  376.  See  Tr.c'v  r.  Keith,  U  Allen,  214,  215  ;  Robertson  v.  Bruner, 
21  Miss.  242,  244  ;  W'tiitworth  v.  Carter,  43  Miss.  61,  71,  72  ;  Dunbar  v. 
Meyer,  43  Miss.  r>7ii,  (No ;  iitfrri,  n.  3.  Contra,  Donovan,  41  Conn.  .551, 
5.57  ;  Graves  v.  Phillips,  20  Ohio  St.  371,  391  ;  5  Am.  Rep.  775 ;  infra, 
n.  4. 

2  Todrl  V.  Lee,  15  Wis.  365,  .380.  See  Jones  v.  CrosthwaJte,  17  Iowa, 
333,  403,  404. 

3  Maelay  r.  Love,  25  Cal.  .367,  382  ;  West  v.  I.rfiraway,  28  Mich.  464, 
465;  Cain  t'.'Bunkley;  35  Mi.ss.  119,  145  ;  supra,  n.  1. 

4  Perkins  r.  Elliott,  22  N.  J.  Eq.  127,  129  ;  23  N.  J.  Eq.  526,  534  ; 
cases  collected  ante,  i  237,  n.  3. 

5  Rules  discussed,  ante,  U  200,  207. 

6  Ante,  5  37. 

7  Scott,  13  Ind.  225,  228  ;  gnpra,  n.  4.  But  see  Staley  v.  Hamilton, 
19  Fla.  275,  296. 

8  Perkins  v.  Elliott,  23  N.  J.  Eq.  526,  534. 

9  Wicks  V.  Mitchell,  9  Kan.  80,  87. 

10  See  cases  cited  ante,  H  206, 207. 

11  Bressler?'.  Kent,  61  111.  426,430;  14Am.Rep.67;  Berry  i-.  Bland. 
Smedes  &  M.  77,  83,  84  ;  Puud  v.  Carpenter,  12  Minn.  430. 

12  2  Bish.  M.  W.  I  212. 

13  Ante,  I  206 

11  Radford  V.  Carwile,  13  AV.  Va.  .573,  674.  See  Hall  v.  Eccleston, 
37  Md.  510,  520  ;  Seiph  v.  Howland,  23  Miss.  264,  267. 

15  2  Bish.  M.  W.  ?  212. 

16  Staley  v.  Hamilton,  19  Fla.  275,  295  ;  ante,  ?  236. 

17  Hall  I'.  Dotson,  55  Tex.  520,  524  ;  ante,  ?  236. 

g  239.  Wife's  contracts  binding  on  her  statutory  sepa- 
rate estate  by  virtue  of  the  statutes. — Wlien  tlie  separate 
property  act  authorizes  a  married  Avoman  to  make  con- 
tracts "relating  to,"  or  "with  respect  to,"  or  "with 
reference  to,"  her  separate  property ,'  the  question  is, 
wliat  contracts  do  so  relate,  etc.?  Whether  a  contract  for 
the  purchase  money  of  certain  property  is  a  contract 
relating  to  that  property  is  disputed.'  But  contracts 
for  the  cultivation,^  improvement,*  stocking,5  supply- 


343  STATUTORY   SEPARATE   PROPERTY.  §  239 

ing  with  tools, ^  or  with  work  horses,'  of  her  separate 
farm,  are  contracts  relating  thereto  ;  so  is  a  contract  for 
furniture  for  her  house ;  ®  but  not  a  contract  for  sup- 
plies for  the  family ,9  or  for  the  purchase  of  a  saddle 
horse.*^  So  a  contract  providing  for  damages  for  an 
injury  to  her  property,  is  a  contract  with  reference 
thereto."  When  the  wife's  capacity  to  contract  with 
reference  to  her  separate  property  is  implied  from  her 
capacity  to  hold,  use,  and  enjoy  the  same,  as  being 
involved  therein, ^^  the  question  is,  what  contracts  are 
necessary  and  proper  to  render  her  tenure,  use,  and 
enjoyment  of  the  property  as  full  and  beneficial  as 
was  intended?'^  Whether,  when  she  may  acquire  by 
purchase,  she  may  buy  on  credit,  is  disputed ;  '*  but,  if 
she  may  trade,  she  may  buy  a  bill  of  goods  on  credit,^" 
and  miay  malie  all  contracts  in  the  usual  course  of  busi- 
ness.^fi  If  slie  may  earn  for  her  own  use,  she  may  buy 
a  sewing  macliine  to  do  her  sewing  on,i'  or  a  piano  to 
give  lessons  on.'^  ghe  may  employ  counsel  to  litigate 
her  rights  to  her  property  ;  '^  she  maj-  employ  servants 
and  laborers  thereupon  ;  '">  she  maj-  lease  it,2i  make 
contracts  for  its  cultivation, '^^  repair,  etc.,^  and  for  dis- 
posing of  its  produce.^'  Whatever  is  essential  to  make 
its  use  beneficial,  she  may  do.^^  Tiiese  contracts,  it 
must  be  remembered,  are  not  binding  on  her  person- 
ally,'^* but  they  are  enforced  against  her  property,^'  in 
some  States  by  a  suit  at  law,^^  in  others  by  a  proceed- 
ing in  equity."^ 

1  Marshall  v.  Berry,  13  Allen,  43,  45  ;  aiile,  \  237. 

2  Pro.  Labiiree  v.  Colby,  !)9  Mass.  539,  560.  Contra,  Jones  v.  Crosth- 
walte,  17  Iowa,  393,  402;  Miller  v.  Albertson,  73  Ind.  343,  345;  ante., 
I  223. 

3  Batchelder  v.  Sargent,  47  N.  H.  262,  2(M. 

4  Burr  v.  Swan,  118  Mass.  588,  589  ;  BatcheWer  v.  Sargent,  4V  N.  H. 
262,  264,  266. 

5  Batchekler  v.  Sargent,  47  N.  H.  262,  264,  266. 

6  McCorinipk;  v.  Holbrook,  22  Iowa,  487,489;  Batchelder  ?'.  Sar- 
gent, 47  N.  H.  262,  264. 


^243  STATITTORY    SEPARATE    PROPERTY.  344 

7  Mitchell  v.  Smith,  32  Iowa,  4M,  487. 

8  Harmon  r.  Garland,  1  Macliey,  1. 

0  Schneider  ik  Garland,  1  Maclcey,  350. 

10  McDermott  v.  Garland,  I  Mackey,  496. 

11  Duren  v.  Getchell,  55  Me.  241,  248. 

12  Kro'jskop  v.  Shontz,  51  Wis.  204,  214  ;  Cookson  v.  Toole,  59  IIL 
515,  51'J  ;  Batchelder  v.  Sargent,  47  N.  H.  262,  266  ;  ante.  \  237,  n.  5. 

13  Meyers  v.  Rahte,  46  Wis.  655,  658. 

14  Pro.  Tiemeyer  v.  Turnquist,  85  N.  Y.  516,521  ;  3!)  Am.  Bep.  674. 
See  cases  cm/e,  \  224. 

15  Trieber  v.  Stover,  30  Ark.  727,  730  ;  Krouskop  v.  Shontz,  51  Wis. 
204, 217. 

16  Plumer  v.  Lord,  5  Allen,  460,  462  ;  Frecking  v.  Rolland,  53  N.  Y. 
422  425. 

17  Williamson  v.  Dodge,  5  Hun,  498,  499  ;  Dayton  v.  Walsh,  47  Wis. 
113,  120  ;  32  Am.  Rep.  757. 

18  Dayton  %\  Walsh,  47  Wis.  113,  120  ;  32  Am.  Rep.  757. 

19  Leonard  v.  Rogan,  20  Wis.  540,  542  ;  post.  U  362,  363. 

20  Cookson  v.  Toole,  59  111.  515,  520. 

21  Parent  v.  Callerand,  64  111.  97,  99. 

22  Mitchell  v..  Carpenter,  50  III.  470. 

23  Beard  v.  Redolph,  29  Wis.  136,  141. 

24  Mitchell  v.  Carpenter,  50  III.  470. 

25  Batchelder  v.  Sargent,  47  N.  H.  262,  266  ;  citations  snjyra.  n.  12. 

26  Doyle  V.  Orr,  57  Miss.  229,  232  ;  ante,  ?  237. 

27  Johnson  v.  Cummings.  16  N.  J.  Eq.  97, 104,  105. 

28  Cookson  V.  Toole,  59  111.  515,  519 ;  jwst,  ?  242. 

29  Stockton  V.  Farley,  10  W.  Va.  171, 175  ;  27  Am.  Rep.  566  ;  post, 
5  242. 

1  240.  Wife's  wills  of  statutory  separate  estate. — 
Whether  a  statute  enabling  a  married  Avonian  to  hold 
her  property  as  if  sole,  enables  her  to  will,  is  doubt- 
ful;' but  a  statute  enabling  her  to  hold  and  convey 
does  not.'^  Though  the  right  to  will  is  an  incident  to 
ownership,^  a  married  woman  cannot,  it  is  said,  \nl\ 
her  statutory  sej^arate  estate  witliout  express  authority  ;  * 
the  same  rule  has  been  laid  down  by  many  courts,  as 
to  equitable  separate  property.^  She  may  will  under 
an  express  statute,^  and  may,  under  sucli  a  statute,  will 
statutory  separate  estate,  although  it  was  passed  before 
any  separate  property  act.^  Wills  of  married  women 
are  discussed  in  another  chapter  of  tliis  work.** 


345  STATUTORY   SEPARATE    PROPERTY.      §g  241-243 

1  Pro.  Naylor  v.  Field,  2!1  N.  J.  L.  287,  288.    See  post,  I  346. 

2  Harker  v.  Elliott,  3  Har.  (Del.)  51,  59. 

3  Cavenaugh  v.  AnicUbacker,  36  Ga.  500,  506. 

4  Cain  v.  Bunkle.v,  35  Miss.  119, 145. 

5  Wilkinson  w  Wright,  6  Jlon.  B.  576,  577  ;  ante,  I  208. 

6  Silsby  v.  Bullock,  10  Allen,  94,  95. 

7  Emmert  v.  Hays,  89  111.  11, 16. 

8  Po«i,  52  340-354. 

§  241.  Wife's  remedies  concerning  her  statutory  separate 
property.  —  How  a  married  woman  shall  enforee  her 
rights  arising  out  of  her  statutory  separate  proi)erty  is 
usually  fixed  by  statute,^  and  is  discussed  under 
"  Suits  of  Married  Women  "  ;  ^  when  slie  may,  by  stat- 
ute, sue  as  if  sole,  slie  cannot  sue  in  equity  unless  an 
unmarried  woman  could.^ 

1  See  Ma.  R.  C.  1878,  p.  482,  ?  22. 

2  See  post,  li  427,  et  seq. 

3  Frazler  ?i.  White,  49  Md.  1,  8  ;  post,  §  446. 

g  242.  Liabilities  of  statutory  separate  property. — A 
married  woman's  statutory  separate  i)ro2)ertj^  i.s  liable, 
with  her  other  property,  for  her  torts  ;  i  this  was  true  at 
common  law.^  It  is  also  liable  on  any  contract  which 
falls  within  the  classes  already  discussed  as  binding 
it;^  the  main  question  being,  is  the  remedy  at  law  or 
in  equity  ?  Those  contracts  which  bind  it  on  the  ground 
that  it  is  treated  as  equitable  separate  projierty,^  are 
enforced  in  equity  ;»  those  which  render  it  lialsle  by 
virtue  of  the  statute,^  are  usually  enforced  at  law,'  the 
statutes  themselves  sometimes  deterinining  the  form 
of  the  remedy.^  It  is  not  liable  for  the  debts  or  on  the 
contracts  of  the  husband,^  unless  he  acted  as  the  wife's 
agent  in  fact.'"  Whether  her  lands  are  bound  by  me- 
chanics' liens,  depends  upon  circumstances  ; "  the  lien 
is  to  secure  a  debt  arising  out  of  a  contract  by  the 
owner,  and  the  contract  must  therefore  be  made  by 
the  wife,^^  and  be  valid  ;i3  it  is  sufficient  if  it  is  valid  in 


?  243  STATUTORY   SEPARATE    PROPERTY.  346 

equity."  Remedies  against  the  property  of  married 
women  arc  more  fully  discussed  in  the  chapter  on 
"Suits  of  Married  Women."  ^^ 

1  Howard  v.  North,  .5  Tex.  21)0,  299  ;  ante,  \  66  ;  post,  \  438 

2  Ante,  I  G6  ;  post,  l\  ■121-424. 

3  Ante,  \  237. 

4  Johnson  v.  Cummings,  IG  N.  J.  Eq.  97, 104,  ]a5  ;  ante,  \  238. 

5  Wicksr.  Mitrhell.g  Kan.  SO,  87;  Rogers  r.  Ward,  8  Allen,  387, 
390,  391 ;  Pond  v.  Carpenter,  12  Minn.  430,  432  ;  King  v.  Mittulberger, 
50  Mo.  182,  18> ;  John.son  v.  Cummings,  10  N.  J.  Va\.  !I7,  10.'i  ;  Perkins 
1'.  Elliott,  22  N.  .J.  Kq.  127,  129  ;  23  N.  J.  Eq.  .526,  i^X^ :  fJnives  v.  Phil- 
lips, 20  Ohio  St.  371,  ;'91  ;  5  Am.  Rep.  566  ;  Glass  v.  Warwick,  40  Pa.  St. 
140,  145  ;  Stockton  v.  Farley,  10  W.  Va.  171,  175  ;  -Jl  Am.  Rep.  566. 

6  Ante,  \  238. 

7  Cookson  v.  Toole.  .59  111.  .515,  522  ;  Mitchell  v.  Carpenter,  50  HI. 
470,  .521  ;  Williams  v.  Hugunin,  6.1  III.  214,  21il  ;  is  Am.  Hip.  f)07  ;  West 
V.  Larawav,28  Alich.  461,  470  ;  BatcheliUr  r.  Sargent,  47  X.  H.  262,  264  ; 
Krouskop  V.  Shontz,  51  Wis.  204,  214  ;  Meyer.s  v.  Italite,  46  Wis.  6.5.5,  6.58  ; 
Beard  v.  Redolph,  29  Wis.  136,  141 ;  Leonard  v.  Rogan,  20  Wis.  540,  542. 

8  The  statutes  of  the  particular  State  should  be  examined. 

9  Johnson  v.  Tutewiler,  35  Ind.  3.53,  3.55  ;  post,  I  243. 

10    Hobensack  v.  llollman,  17  Pa.  St.  407,  414  ;  ante,  V.  84,  88. 

n  See  Rogers  v.  Phillips,  3  Eng.  366  ;  Johnson  v.  Tutewiler,  35  Ind. 
3.53,  .3.55  ;  Miller  v.  Hollingsworth,  33  Iowa,  224  ;  Burdick,  24  Iowa,  4IH  ; 
Greenongh  ?>.  Wiggington,  2  Greene,  435;  Marsh  ?•.  .\lforil,  5  Busli, 
392  ;  Pell  v.  Cole,  2  Met.  (Kv.)  282,  284  ;  Jarden  r.  Pnmphrev,  3(1  Md. 
361  ;  Kirbv  ?-.  Tead,  13  Met.  149,  153  ;  Selph  v.  Howlaiid,  23  Miss.  2(i4  ; 
(Jray  v.  Pope,  .35  Miss.  116,  117;  Tucker  )•.  (irst,  4(i  Mo.  339,  341; 
Hauptman  c.  Catlin,  20  N.  Y.  247,  24M  ;  Sjiinniiig  v.  Hluckburn,  13 
Ohio  St.  131  ;  Briggs  i'.  Titus,  7  R.  I.  441  ;  Knott  r.  Carpenter,  3  Head, 
&12. 

12  Burdick  v.  Moon,  24  Iowa,  418. 

13  Kirby  v.  Tead,  13  Met.  149,  153  ;  Gray  v.  Pope,  35  Miss.  116, 117. 

14  Hauptman  v.  Catlin,  20  N.  Y.  247,  248. 

15  Post,  i'i  428,  et  seq. 

\  243.  Rights  of  husband  and  his  creditors  in  wife's  stat- 
utory separate  estate. —  A  husband  has  the  right  to  pos- 
sess his  wife's  property  so  far  as  such  possession  is 
involved  in  his  full  enjoyment  of  his  right  of  cohabita- 
tion ;i  and  he  has  a  right  of  action  of  his  own  again.st  a 
third  party  who,  without  his  wife's  consent,  remove.^ 
her  property  from  their  common  home ;  ^  but  he  can- 
not sue  one  who,  as  her  agent,  removes  her  property 
from  his  possession  ;3  and  he  cannot  sue  in  his  own 
name  for  the  recovery  of  her  property  itself.*    When 


347  STATUTORY   SEPARATE   TROPERTY.  §  243 

he  occupies  her  propei'ty  with  her,  the  law  does  not 
presume  that  it  is  under  his  control,^  lie  does  not  fall 
within  the  definition  of  "owner"  thereof,^  nor  is  he 
liable  for  a  nuisance  thereupon,  unless  he  is  in  some 
way  actively  connected  with  such  nuisancer  He  may 
labor  thereupon  as  her  agent,^  or  even  make  improve- 
ments thereupon,^  without,  in  the  absence  of  actual 
fraudji"  making  it  in  any  way  liable  for  his  debts.'' 
The  general  effect  of  the  statutes  is  to  destroy  his  mar- 
riage property'  rights;'^  but  a  statute  may  exempt  her 
property  from  liis  debts  without  destroying  his  rights 
therein  at  all.'^  So,  a  statute  may  enable  her  to  receipt 
for  her  property,  without  affecting  his  common-law 
right  to  receii^t  therefor.'*  He  cannot  steal  her  prop- 
erty,'^ though  she  may,  it  seems,  sue  him  for  torts  con- 
nected tlicrewith.'s  Unless  his  curtesy  is  destroyed  by 
the  statute  expressly,'^  or  by  laer  disposition  of  her 
property  by  virtue  of  her  powers  thereover,'^  he  has 
this  estate  at  her  death. '*  His  creditors  have,  as  a 
usual  thing,  no  rights  whatever  against  her  property,™ 
unless  she  has  acquired  it  from  him  in  fraud  of  their 
rights.^' 

1  Walker  v.  Reamy,  36  Pa.  St.  410,  -IH  ;  ante,  U  H.  59- 

2  Rogers  v.  Roberts,  58  Md.  519,  523. 

3  Southard  v.  Piper,  36  Me.  84,  85. 

4  Bunnahoo  v.  Holland,  51  Gii,  147, 149. 

5  Fiske  v.  BaUey,  51  N.  Y.  150,  153. 

6  Davis  0.  Dodds,  20  Ohio  St.  473. 

7  Fiske  v.  Bailey,  51  N.  Y.  150.  153. 

8  Miller  v.  Peck,  22  W.  Va.  75,  79-97  ;  ante,  U  87,  130. 

9  Webster  v.  Hildreth,  33  Vt.  457,  458  ;  ante,  'i  131. 

10  Kirby  v.  Burns,  45  Mo.  234,  235 ;  Haswell  v.  Hill,  47  N.  H.  407. 
414  ;  ante,  U  87,  l:fO,  131. 

11  Discussed  ante,  U  87,  130, 131. 

12  Vreeland,  16  N.  J.  Eq.  517,  522  ;  ante,  I  1.50. 

13  Logan  v.  McGill,  8  Md.  461,  470  ;  White  v.  Dorris,  35  Mo.  181,  187, 
188. 

14  Clark  V.  Bank,  47  Mo.  17, 19. 

15  Thomas,  51  111.  162,  165  ;  ante,  i  49. 


§243 


STATUTORY   SEPARATE   PROPERTY. 


16  ]\linler,  4  Lans.  421.  But  see  Crowther,  55  Me.  353,  3.j9  ;  Smitl;  ii. 
Gorman,  41  Me.  405.  408  ;  Jackson  v.  Parks,  10  Cush.  550  ;  Martin  v. 
Gofif,  6  R.  I.  92,  96  ;  ante,  ??  52-56. 

17  Hatfield  v.  Sneden,  54  N.  Y.  280,  287. 

18  Johnson  v.  Cummings,  16  N.  J.  Eq.  97,  106. 

19  See  Noble  v.  McFarland,  51  III.  226  ;  Freeman  v.  Hartman,  45 
111.  57;  Cole  V.  Van  Riper,  44  111.  58;  Hathon  v.  Lyon,  2  Mich.  93; 
Farr  i\  Sherman,  U  Mich.  33  ;  Tong  v.  Marvin,  15  Mich.  60;  Piper  r. 
Johnston,  12  Minn.  60;  Porch  v.  Fries,  18  N.  J.  Eq.  204;  Hatfield  v. 
Snerk'n,54  N.  Y.280,  287;  Curry  j".  Bott,63  Pa.  St.  400  ;  biddings  t'.  Cox, 
31  Vt.  607 ;  ante,  H  161. 

20  Martin  V.  Cioif,  6  R.  I.  92,96. 

21  Discussed  ante,  99-134. 


349  DOWER.  I  244 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

wife's  estate  in  husband's  realty  —  DOWER. 

Art.  I.    Nature  and  Incidents  of  Dower,  gg  244-264. 
II.    Barring  and  Defeating  of  Dower,  g^  265- 
282. 
III.     Assignment  of  Dower,  g?  283-300. 

Article  I.  —  Natitre  and  Incidents  of  Dower. 

i  244.  Meaning  of  the  word  "dower." 

5  245.  Origin  and  history  of  dower. 

i  246.  Dower  at  common  law  defined. 

J  247.  Dower  under  tlie  statutes. 

?  248.  Conflict  of  laws  as  to  dower. 

5  249.  Requisites  of  dower. 

i  230.  Marriage  as  a  requisite  of  dower. 

§  251.  Husband's  death  as  a  requisite  of  dower. 

i  252.  Husband's  seisin  as  a  requisite  of  dower. 

§  253.  Kinds  of  property  subject  to  dower. 

J  254.  Kinds  of  estates  subject  to  dower. 

?  255.  Dos  de  dote  peti  non  debet. 

§  256.  Dower  in  equitable  estates. 

§  257.  Dower  in  partnership  estates. 

1  258.  Dower  and  otlier  encumbrances  — Priorities. 

2  259.  Dower  and  purchase  money. 

5  260,  Dower  in  mortgaged  property  —  How  it  exists. 

5  261.  Dower  in  mortgaged  property  —  Redemption  and  foreclosure. 

§  262.  Dower  before  husband's  death  —  Inchoate  dower. 

i  2ex  Dower  before  assignment. 

i  264.  Assigned  dower  — Incidents  of. 

§  244.  Meaning  of  the  word  "dower." — The  word 
"dower"  means  generally  a  certain  estate  of  a  wife  in 
the  lands  of  her  husband  —  dower  at  common  law ; '  this 
estate  must  be  distinguished  from  a  wife's  estate  as 
heir.2  The  word  is  applicable,  .strictly,  only  to  realty,^ 
but  in  one  case  it  stood  .so  connected  in  a  will,  that  it 
was  !\eld  to  cover  a  share  in  personalty  r.s  avcII  ;*  so  it 
H.  &  w.  — so. 


I  245  DOWER.  350 

is  made  by  statute  to  describe  an  estate  in  personalty.^ 
It  is  applicable  properly  only  to  an  estate  of  a  wife  ;  ^ 
but  here  again,  statutes  have  changed  its  meaning  and 
made  it  cover  an  estate  of  a  husband  as  well.' 

1  Ouerin  v.  Moore,  25  Minn.  -Ifi'J,  465  ;  post.  ?  246. 

2  Sutherland,  69  111.  4S1,  489  ;-Stewart  M.  &  D.  f  457. 

3  Hill  V.  Mitrhell,  5  Ark.  608,  6U.  S.  P.,  Travellers  r.  Nolanil,  97 
Ind.  217;  Davis,  S6  Iowa,  24  ;  Perkins  v.  Uttle,  1  Me.  148  ;  Bracket!  i-. 
r.eighton,  7  Me.  -183  ;  Dow.  :W  Me.  211 ;  Bryant  v.  McCune,  49  ifo.  516 ; 
Lamar  v.  Scott,  3  .Strob.  562. 

4  Woodbury  r.  Matliewson,  17  Fla.  778,  783  ;  Adamson  v.  Ayres,  5 
N.  J.  Eq.  .•M9. 

5  Ark.  Dig.  1874,  |  2230 ;  Mo.  R.  S.  1879,  i  2196. 

6  Post,  U  246,  247. 

7  III.  R.  S.  1880,  p.  425,  i  1  ;  Hurlemaa  v.  Hsizlett,  55  Iowa,  256. 

^  245.  Origin  and  history  of  dower. —  The  custom  of 
conferring  un  a  widow  for  life  a  portion  of  her  hu.sband's 
lands,  of  allowing  her  dower,  is  so  ancient  that  neither 
Coke  nor  Blackstone  could  trace  it  to  its  source. *  It  is 
said  to  have  been  of  German  origin, ^  also,  to  have  been 
brought  into  England  by  tlie  Normans.^  It  must  be 
distiuguislied  from  the  dos  of  the  civil  law,  still  known 
in  Lousiana,*  which  consists  of  a  portion  brought  to  tlie 
husband  by  the  wife.^  At  Hrst  it  may  have  consisted 
of  a  gift  of  personal  property  from  the  husband  to  the 
wife,*^  but  it  became  later  solely  an  interest  in  lands." 
So,  too,  it  was  one  fourth,  one  tenth,  and  one  half,  before 
it  became  settled  at  one  third  for  life.^  Tiiis  result  was 
due  to  English  statutes,^  wliicli,  as  a  part  of  the  common 
law,  were  generally  adopted  in  tlie  United  States. i" 
But  later  statutes  have  much  modified  common-law 
dower,  both  in  England  and  the  United  States."  Five 
kinds  of  dower  are  named  by  Littleton,  namely,  dower 
ad  ostium  ecclesiae,  dower  ex  a.isen  sii  patris,  dower  by 
the  custom,  dower  de  la  pluis  beale,  and  dower  at  com- 
mon law ;  12  but  only  the  last  named  has  ever  been 
known  in  the  United  States."    However  obscure  its 


351  DOWER.  g  246 

origin,  its  object  has  never  been  doubted,  which  was  to 
secure  a  means  of  support  to  th>  widow  andcliildren  ;  '* 
audio  further  this  object  courts  have  always  favored 
the  widows  claim  for  dower '^ — life,  liberty,  and  dower, 
being  the  three  things  said  to  have  been  favored  by  the 
common  law.'^ 

1  Hill  V.  Mitchell,  5  Ark.  r>as,  610  ;  Wright  r.  Jennings,  1  Bail.  277, 
278  ;  Combs  v.  Young,  4  Yerg.  218  ;  1  Scrlbuer  Dow.  ch.  1,  j  1. 

2  See  l-Scribner  Dow.  ch.  1. 

3  See  citations  supra,  n.  1. 
J    De  Young,  6  La.  An.  786. 

5  2  Blackst.  Com.  12!) ;  1  Scribner  Dow.  ch.  1,  S  4. 

6  Wright's  Ten.  191, 193  ;  1  Scribner  Dow.  ch.  1, 1  5. 

7  1  Scribner  Dow.  ch.  1,  J  7  ;  post,  I'i  253,  254. 

8  1  Scribner  Dow.  ch.  1,  ?  7. 

9  See  discussion  in  1  Scribner  Dow.  ch.  1. 

10  Ante,  i  6  ;  discussed  1  Scribner  Dow.  ch.  2. 

11  rost,  J  247. 

12  LitUeton,  8  51  ;  1  Scribner  Dow.  ch.  1,  J  26. 

13  1  Scribner  Dow.  ch.  1, 1  30. 

14  Banks  v.  Sutton,  2  P.  Wms.  T02. 

15  Chew,  1  Md.  163,  172, 173.  S.  P.,  Co.  Litt.  124,  6;  Banks  v.  Sutton, 
2  P.  Wms.  702  ;  Meigs  v.  Dimock,  6  Conn.  462;  Lasher,  13  Barb.  106  ; 
Mahon  v.  Smith,  60  How.  Pr.  385. 

16  Bacon  ou  Stat  of  Uses,  ed.  1642,  pp.  31,  32  ;  i  Scribner  Dow.  ch. 
1,  ?33. 

§  246.  Dower  at  common  law,  defined.  —  Dower  at  com- 
mon law  is  the  life  estate  •  of  a  wife  ^  in  one  tliird  ^  of 
all  the  legal  *  estates  of  inheritance  ^  of  which  her  hus- 
band is  seized  "at  any  time  during  coverture'  of  a  sole,^ 
beneficial,^  and  immediate '"  seisin,  and  which  any  issue 
of  theirs  might  directly '^  inherit. '^  This  estate  has 
three  stages,!""  namely  :  (1)  Its  inchoate  stage,  extending 
from  the  time  of  the  marriage  or  of  the  acquisition  of 
the  property,  to  the  death  of  the  husband ;  ^^  (2)  Its 
consummate  stage,  extending  from  the  death  of  the 
husband  ;  '^  (3)  its  assigned  stage,  extending  from  the 
time  it  is  set  off  to  the  widow. '^    This  was  the  only 


g  247  DOWER.  352 

marriage  estate  of  a  wife  in  her  husband's  realty  known 
to  tlie  common  law. 

1  See  Orrlck  v.  Boehm,  49  Md.  72,  101  ;  Brown  v.  Collins,  14  Ark. 
421 ;  post,  i  2&4. 

2  Brooke,  60  Md.  524,  533,  534  ;  pnst,  i  250. 

3  Mantz  v.  Buchanan,  1  Md.  Ch.  202,  208  ;  post,  \\  290-296. 

4  Gully  V.  Ray,  18  Mon.  B.  107,  113 ;  post,  I  2.5.5. 

5  Bucheridge  v.  Ingram,  2  Ves.  Jr.  663  ;  post,  \\  25.3,  254. 

6  Seisin  discussed,  post,  \  252. 

7  Price  v.  Hobbs,  47  Md.  359,  378  ;  post,  k  252. 

8  Chew,  1  Md.  16;5,  172 ;  post,  \  252. 

9  McCauley  v.  Grimes,  2  Gill  &  J.  318,  324 ;  post,  \  252. 

10  I  louston  V.  Smith,  8.8  X.  C.  312,  313 ;  iwst,  i  252. 

11  1  Scribner  Dow.  p.  228  ;  Park  Dow.  80. 

12  Spangler  v.  Stanler,  1  Md.  Ch.  36,  38  ;  post,  5  254. 

13  Moore  v.  Major,  8  N.  Y.  110, 113 ;  59  Am.  Dec.  473  ;  Wait,  4  X.  Y. 
95,  'X). 

14  Reiflf  V.  Horst,  55  Md  42,  47  ;  lX)St,  i  262. 

15  Sutliffti.  Forgey,  1  Cowen,  89,  96  ;  post,  ?  26.3. 

16  Joyner  v.  Speed,  68  N.  C.  236 ;  post,  ?  264. 

§  247.  Dower  under  tho  statutes.  —  In  California,'  Col- 
orado,'' Indiana,*  lowa,^  Kan.sas,'  Louisiana,^  Minne- 
sota,' Mississippi,*  Nevada,^  and  Texas,'"  common-law 
dower  has  never  existed,  or  lias  been  abolished,  other 
analogous  estates  existing  in  its  place.  In  England," 
Alabama,''^  Arkansas,'*  Connecticut,"  Delaware,'^  Flor- 
ida,'" Georgia,"  Illinois,'®  Kentucky,'^  Maine,2o  Mary- 
land,-' Massachusetts, '^2  Michigan,^  Missouri,'-'*  Nebras- 
ka,^^  New  Hampshire,"^*  New  Jersey,'^  New  York,''* 
North  Carolina,^  Ohio,*"  Oregon,*'  Pennsylvania,*' 
Rhode  Island,^  South  Carolina,*'  Tennessee,*^  Vir- 
ginia,*" Vermont,*'  West  Virginia,**  and  Wisconsin,*^ 
cominon-law  dower  exists  in  a  more  or  less  modified 
form.  In  one  or  more  of  these  latter  States  the  statutes 
make  one  or  more  of  the  following  changes  in  common- 
law  dower :  possession,*"  or  right  of  entry,*'  is  substi- 
tuted for  seisin  ;  the  interest  is  made  one  half  instead 
of  one  third, *^  dower  is  given  in  personal  property,**  in 


353  DOWER.  §  2i7' 

leaseholds,"  in  reniainders,^^  in  equitable  estates  ;^^  is 
limited  to  sucli  proportj^  as  the  husband  is  seized  of  at 
the  time  of  his  death/'  or  such  as  he  has  not  disposed 
of  by  deed  oi-  will;'^  modifications  which  are  better 
understood  in  connection  with  the  discussions  in  the 
following  sections. 

1  Cal.  Civ.  Code,  1S81,  i  173  ;  Beard  v.  Knox,  1  Cal.  252. 

2  Colo.  R.  S.  1877,  ?  1751. 
S  Ind.  R.  S.  18S1,  ?  2483. 

4  Iowa,  R.  S.  1880,  ^  2440. 

5  Kan.  R.  S.  1871,  J  2129. 

6  La.  C'lv.  Code.  arts.  2337,  et  seq. 

7  Minn.  R.  S.  1878,  p.  ."2. 

8  Miss.  R.  S.  1880,  H  1170,  1171. 

9  Nev.  R.  S.  1873,  f  157. 

10  Tex.  R.  S.  1S7!),  H  2352,  et  seq. 

11  3  and  4  William  IV.  ch.  105,  ch.  27,  ?  41 ;  7  and  8  Vict.  ch.  66,  ?  16  , 
24  Vict.  ch.  12(i,  a  26,  27. 

12  Ala.  Code,  1876,  J?  2232-2251  ;  Irvine  v.  Armistead,  46  Ala.  363,  371. 

13  Ark.  Dig.  1874,  ??  2210-2243  ;  McWhirter  v.  Roberts,  40  Ark.  283, 
287  ;  Webb  );.  Smith,  40  Ark.  17,  23. 

14  Conn.  R.  S.  1875,  pp.  376,  377. 

15  Del.  R.  S.  1874,  p.  53.3. 

16  Fla.  R.  S.  1881,  pp.  476-480. 

17  Ga.  R.  C.  1878,  U  176:W771,  4041-4048. 

18  111.  R.  S.  1880,  p.  425. 

19  Ky.  R.  S.  1881,  p.  527. 

20  Me.  R.  S.  1871,  p.  706. 

21  Md.  R.  C.  1878,  p.  397;   Reiff  v.  Horst,  o5  Md.  42,  47;  Price  v 
Hobbs,  47  Md.  359,  381. 

22  Mass.  P.  S.  1&82,  p.  740. 

23  Mich.  R.  S.  1882,  ?  573.3. 

24  Mo.  R.  S.  1879,  ii  2186-22-39,  3290. 

25  Neb.  R.  S.  1881,  pp.  212-215,  227,  254,  39.3. 

26  N.  H.  R.  .S.  1878,  pp.  474,  475. 

27  N.  J.  Rev.  1877,  pp.  224,  298,  320-.324,  483,  124.5. 

28  X.  Y.  R.  S.  1882,  pp.  2197,  2198. 

2.)    N.  C.  Bat.  Rev.  1873,  pp.  839,  844  ;  Houston  v.  .Smith,  88  X.  C.  312, 

.30  Ohio  R.  S.  1880,  ?J  4188-4194. 

31  Oreg.  G.  L.  1872,  pp.  584-587. 

.32  Pa.  Purd.  Dig.  1876,  pp.  55,  56,  529,  .5.30  ;  Davison,  95  Pa.  St.  394. 

33  R.  I.  R.  S.  1.S.82   pp.  636-«40. 


gg  248-249  DOWER.  354 

34  S.  C.R.  S.  1882,  §§.1700-1804. 

35  Tenn.  R.  S.  187S,  §§  2398-2410. 

36  Va.  Code,  1873,  pp.  8.>i-«.56,  96'-. 

37  Vt.  R.  S.  1880,  §§  2215-2220. 

.^8  W.  Va.  R.  S.  1879,  pp.  408,  499  ;  Thornbury,  18  W.  Va.  522. 

39  Wis.  R.  S.  1878,  §?  21.59-2163. 

40  Conn.  R.  S.  1875,  p.  376,  §  1. 

41  3  and  4  Wm.  IV.  ch.  105,  §  2. 

42  Ala.  Code,  1876,  §  223.3. 

43  Ark.  Dig.  1874,  §  22.30. 

44  Mo.  R.  S.  1879,  §  2186. 

45  Ohio  R.  S.  1879,  ?  2186. 

46  III.  R.  S.  1880,  p.  425,  §  1  ;  Md.  R.  C.  1878,  p.  3S7,  J  1. 

47  Ga.  R.  C.  1878,  ?  1763  ;  Tenn.  R.  S.  1873,  §  2398. 

48  3  and  4  Wm.  IV.  ch.  105,  §  4. 

?  248.  Conflict  of  laws  as  to  dower. — As  a  general  rule, 
the  existence  and  incidents  of  dower  are  determined  bj'^ 
tlie  law  of  the  place  where  the  lands  lie,^  and  by  the 
law  in  force  at  the  time  of  the  husband's  death,  if  he 
died  seized,'^  and  by  that  in  force  at  the  time  of  aliena- 
tion if  he  had  disposed  of  tlie  property;^  for  dower  is 
not  the  result  of  a  contract,  but  is  an  institution  of  the 
law.* 

1  Newcomer  v.  Orem,  2  Md.  297,  305;  56  Am.  Dec.  717;  ante,  \  33. 
S.  P.,  Apperson  %\  Bolton,  29  Ark.  418  ;  Duncan  v.  Dick,  Walk.  (Miss.) 
281 ;  Lamar  v.  Scott,  3  Strob.  562. 

2  Riddick  v.  Walsh,  15  Mo.  519,  5.38 ;  ante,  §  3.3.  8.  P.,  Ware 
V.  Owens,  42  Ala.  212 ;  Lucas  t'.  Sawyer,  17  Iowa,  517.  Compare  John- 
son V.  Van  Dyke,  6  McLean,  422 ;  Moore  r.  Kent,  37  Iowa,  20  ;  18  Am. 
Rep.  1  ;  Kemierly  v.  Missouri,  11  Mo.  204. 

3  O'Farrell  v.  Simplot,  4  Iowa,  .381  ;  ICennerly  v.  Missouri,  11  Mo. 
204. 

4  Martin,  22  Ala.  86  ;  Noel  v.  Ewing,  9  Ind.  37  ;  Hisrsins  r.  Breen, 
9  Mo.  497,  501;  Moore  >•.  Mayor,  8  X.  V.  110,  113;  59  Am.  Dec.  473; 
Norwood  r.  Morrow,  4  Dev.  &  B.  442.  4-50;  Weaver  v.  Gregg,  6  Ohio 
St.  547 ;  Melizet,  17  Pa.  St.  449  ;  55  Am.  Dec.  573. 

I  249.  Requisites  of  dower.  —  Two  things  are  neces- 
sary to  tiie  existence  of  inchoate  dower — marriage  and 
seisin; I  and  three  things  to  the  consummation  of  the 
right  of  dower — marriage,  seisin,  and  death  of  hus- 
band;"'' to  the  actual  enjo^^ment  of  the  estate,  there  is 


355  DOWER.  g  250 

one  other  requisite  —  assignment.^  Birtli  of  issue  is 
not  a  requisite  ;  *  not  even  the  possibility  thereof  is  nec- 
essary, and  an  impotent  woman  may  liave  dower ;  ^  but 
it  is  said  that  the  woman  must  be  old  enough  to  con- 
ceive before  her  husband's  death,^  though  no  matter 
how  old  she  is  at  tlie  time  of  marriage,  she  may  have 
dower.''  Nor  is  residence,®  or  citizenshii),'  any  longer, 
in  general,  a  requisite  of  dower. 

1  Denton  v.  Nanny,  8  Barb.  0:3,  6J0  ;  Price  v.  Hobbs,  -JT  Md.  .S59, 
.■>«I  ;  ante,  i  246  ;  post,  i  262. 

2  King,  61  Ala.  479,  481  ;  Stevens  v.  Smith,  4  Marsh.  J.  .T.  64  ;  20  Am. 
Dec.  206  ;  Wait,  4  N.  Y.  95,  yj  ;  1  Greeiil.  Cruise,  154  ;  ante,  i  246 ;  post, 
«263. 

3  Moore  v.  Maj-or,8  >'.  Y.  i:0, 113,  lU  ;  5J  Am.  Dec.  47:! ;  (inte,  5  240  ; 
2>ost,  U  -W,  28;J-a(J0. 

4  1  Scribner  Dow.  22X 

5  1  Scribner  Dow.  223. 

0  Park  Dow.  81 ;  I  Scribner  Dow.  220. 

7  2  Blackst  Com.  101  ;  Co.  Litt.  40  a. 

8  Pratt  V.  Tefft,  14  Mich.  131,  108.    See  Sewall  v.  Lee,  9  Mass.  303. 

9  See  Vict.  ch.  14  ?  2  ;  Sharp  v.  St.  Sauveur,  Law  R.  7  Ch.  343  ; 
Congregational  ti.  Morris,  8  Ala.  182  ;  I'^theridge  v.  Malempre,  18  Ala. 
565  ;  Forrester,  39  Ala.  320  ;  Ark.  Dig.  1874,  ^  2211 ;  Sistare,  2  Root,  468  ; 
Whiting  V.  Stevens,  4  Conn.  44 ;  Headman  v.  Rose,  63  Ga.  458  ;  III. 
R.  S.  1880,  p.  425,  2  2  ;  State  v.  Black  nio,  8  Blackf.  246  ;  Eldon  v.  Doe, 
6  Blackf.  .'m  ;  Alsberry  v.  Hawkins,  9  Dana,  177;  33  Am.  Dec.  546  ; 
Moore  v.  Tisdale,  5  Mon.  B.  3.52  ;  Mussey  v.  Pierce,  24  Me.  5.59 ;  Potter 
V.  'I1tcomb,22  Me.  539 ;  Buchanan  v.  Deshon,  1  Har.  &  a.  280 ;  Sewall 
V.  Lee,  9  Mass.  363 ;  Fox  v.  Southack,  12  Mass.  143  ;  Foss  v.  Crips,  20 
Pick.  121 ;  Piper  v.  Richardson,  9  Met.  155  ;  Mich.  R.  S.  1882,  ?  5753  ; 
Stokes  V.  Fallon,  2  Mo.  32  ;  Colgan  v.  McKeown,  4  Zab.  566  ;  Sutliff  d. 
Forgey,  1  Cowen.  83;  5  Cowen,  713;  Priest  i\  Cummings,  16  Wend. 
617;  20  Wend.  3:^8;  Burton,  26  How.  Pr.  474  ;  1  Abb.  App.  Dec.  271 ; 
Hall,  82  N.  Y.  130;  Reese  v.  Waters,  4  Watts  &  S.  145;  Benuet  v. 
Harris,  51  Wis.  251 ;  1  Scribner  Dow.  eh.  9. 

1  250.  Marriage  as  a  requisito  of  dower.  —  The  woman 
must  be  the  lawful  wife  of  the  man  in  whose  proi^erty 
she  claims  dower  ;  ^  and,  in  the  absence  of  statute"  she 
must  be  his  wife  at  the  time  of  his  deatli.^  Some  author- 
ities seem  to  hold  that  the  marriage  must  be  not  only 
valid,^  but  legal  and  solemnized  in  facie  ccclesicp  as 
well.'  But  in  the  United  States,  at  least,  a  valid  mar- 
riage makes  tlie  j^arties  husband  and  wife  to  all  intents 
and  purposes,^  and  a  marriage  by  consent — per  verba 


g  251  DOWER.  366 

de  prcesenti — if  valid,  is  sufficient  to  give  dow^er;^  the 
fact  that  her  husband  has  refused  to  consummate  the 
marriage  makes  no  difference.^  Nor  does  it  affect  her 
right  that  the  marriage  took  place  in  some  other  State 
or  country.^"  In  suits  respecting  dower  rights,  mar- 
riage may  be  proved  as  in  other  civil  cases,"  by  cohab- 
itation and  repute.i^  If  the  marriage  is  voidable  and 
not  avoided,  dower  exists ;  '^  but  a  void  marriage  cannot 
give  dower. I'  In  a  case  in  Kentuckj^  whore  a  married 
man  had  imposed  on  a  woman  and  had  married  her, 
and  dower  had  been  allotted  her,  his  heirs  were  not 
allowed  in  equity  to  deprive  her  thereof.'' 

1  Park  Dow.  7 ;  Coke  Litt.  31  a  ;  1  Roper  H.  &  W.  XiS  ;  1  Scribiier 
Dow.  ch.  3 ;  Jones,  28  Ark.  19,  21  ;  Denton  r.  Nanny,  8  Barb.  (US,  620  ; 
Moore  V.  Mayor,  8  X.  Y.  110,  114  ;  59  Am.  Dec.  473. 

2  Allowing  dowor  on  divorce  :  Stewart  JI.  «t  D.  {  41G,;  jxtst  {  262. 

3  McCraney,  5  Iowa,  232,  250  ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  I  44(i. 

4  Valid  and  legal  distinguished :  Stewart  M.  &  D.  U  5, 49, 152. 

5  Shelford  M.  &  D.  35,  3r.  ;  2  Kent.  Com.  87,  n.  n;  Dalrymple.  2 
Hagg.  Con.  54,  Ci  ;  1  Scribner  Dow.  ch.  G. 

6  See  1  Scribner  Dow.  ch.  6,  J  12. 

7  Pearson  v.  Ilowey,  G  Halst.  12,  13,21  ;  Stewart  31.  &  D.  J  86. 

S  Adams,  57  Miss.  267,  2GS ;  Donnellv,  S  Mon.  B.  113 ;  Stewart 
M.  &  D.  J  88. 

9    Brooke,  fiO  Md.  524,  &U ;  Stewart  31.  &  D.  ?  104. 
10    Ilderton,  Black.  H.  145;  Moore  v.  Mayor,  8  N.  Y.  110,  114;  5.1 
Am.  Dec.  473. 

n    Jones,  28  Ark.  19, 22, 25, 26 ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ?  136. 

12  Carter  v.  Parker,  23  Me.  509,  510;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  H  132, 136. 

13  Higgins  V.  Breen,  9  Mo.  497,  501 ;  Litt.  J  36;  1  Greonl.  Crnise,  \M  : 
1  Scribner  Dow.  cli.  8. 

14  Higgings  V.  Breen,  9  Mo.  497,  .501.  S.  P.,  Jenkins,  2  Dsuia.  102  ; 
26  Am.  Dec.  437  ;  Smart  v.  Whaley,  6  Smedes  &  M.  30e  ;  1  Scribner 
Dow.  ch.  7,  §  3. 

15  Donnelly,  8  Mon.  B.  113. 

g  251.  Husband's  death  as  a  requisite  of  dower.  —  The 
husband's  death  must  occur  before  that  of  the  wife  in 
order  that  her  right  of  dower  maj'  be  consummate,' 
vested,'-  absolute.^  And  it  must  be  a  natural  death ; 
civil  death  does  not  give  dower,*  nor  is  an  absolute 
divorce  the  equivalent  of  death   in   this  connection.^ 


357  DOWER.  g  252 

His  death  may  be  presumed  from  his  long  absence,^ 
and  may  be  i^roved  in  the  usual  ways^  —  for  example, 
by  reputation  in  the  family.* 

1  '  Utt.  §  36  ;  Park  Dow.  247  ;  Wait,  4  N.  Y.  9o,  93  ;  nnfe,  I  243  ;  post, 

1  2g:{. 

2  Thornbury,  18  W.  Va.  522  ;  post,  U  263,  264. 

3  SutUff  i>.  Forgey,  1  Cowen,  so,  96  ;  post,  U  203,  264. 

4  Woolbridge  v.  Lucas,  7  Mon.  B.  49,  51.  See  Litt.  33  6,  1.32  6  ; 
Plainer  v.  hherwood,  6  Johns.  Ch.  129  ;  1  Scribuer  Dow.  650  ;  Stewart 
M.  &  D.  J  175. 

5  Stewart  M.  &  D.  §  446. 

6  .Stewart  M.  ifc  D.  H"^-    See  Foulks  r.  Rhea,  7  Bush,  568  ;  Woods, 

2  Bay,  476. 

7  See  Moors  v.  De  Bervales,  1  Russ.  300  ;  iXewmau  v.  Jenkins,  10 
Pifli.  515. 

8  Cochrane  v.  Libby,  18  Me.  .39,  42. 

I  252.  Tho  husband's  seisin  as  a  requisite  of  dower. — 
The  husband  must  be  seized  of  propcrtj^  before  any 
dower  rights  can  attach  thereto. '  This  rule  was  very 
strictly  enforced  at  common  law.-  A  mere  right  of 
entiy  into  land  held  by  another  under  claim  of  title 
Avas  not  enough,^  nor  was  a  judgment  before  execu- 
tion,* though  this  has  been  changed  in  England  15y 
.statute,*  and  perhaps  in  this  country  by  construction ,6 
actual  ownership  being  equivalent  to  seisin.'  The  rule 
as  to  technical  seisin  does  not  aiiplj'^to  incorporeal  here- 
ditaments.8  Seisin  in  law  is  as  effective  as  seisin  in 
fact  or  deed,  to  give  dower.*  Possession  under  a  war- 
ranty deed  is  prima  facie  evidence  of  seisin  ;'"  and  the 
deed  under  whicli  land  is  held  need  not  be  recorded  to 
give  seisin,"  except,  perhaps,  where  there  is  no  dower 
in  equitable  estates,'^  and  under  the  terms  of  certain 
registry  acts,  as  against  bona  fide  creditors  and  pur- 
chasers ;  '*  nor  is  one  seized  of  land  which  he  has  con- 
vej'ed  aAvay  by  an  unrecorded  deed,^*  or  by  a  deed 
which  is  fraudulent  as  against  creditors,  such  deed 
being  merely  voidable  by  them.'^  Wrongful  seisin  is 
sufficient  to  give  the  wife  dower  as  against  her  hus- 


g  252  DOWER.  3.53 

band'a  heirs  and  assigns. '<'  The  seisin  must  be  benefi- 
cial,'^ the  husband  must  be  seized  for  his  own  use.'" 
A  wife  has  no  dower  in  lands  held  by  her  husband  as 
administrator '9  or  trustee;^  but  if  really  beneficial,  it 
makes  no  difl'erenee  how  short  a  time  it  lasts  ;2i  still  if 
in  one  transaction,  though  by  diflferent  deeds,  the  title 
passes  in  and  out  of  tlie  husband,  as  when  property  is 
purchased  and  a  mortgage  is  given  for  the  p?irchase 
money, ^^  the  seisin  is  merely  transitory  and  no  light  to 
dower  attaches,-'  even  though  there  be  considerable 
delay  before  the  execution  of  the  retransfer,^'  and 
though  this  be  made  to  a  third  party.^  The  seisin 
must  be  sole ;  ^  there  is  no  dower  in  joint  estates," 
though  tliere  is  in  estates  in  common^  and  in  coparce- 
nary;"* but  if  the  joint  estate  is  destroyed  by  any 
other  means  than  the  husband's  assignment,^"  dower 
attaches.31  The  husband  must  have  the  immediate 
seisin  of  the  inheritance  ;  ''^  it  will  not  suflSce,  for  exam- 
ple, if  he  is  seized  of  a  life  estate  and  is  entitled  to  the 
inheritance  after  another  life  estate ;''  there  is  no  dower 
in  reversions  and  remainders  after  a  freehold  estate.'* 
The  seisin  nxust  exist  at  some  time  during  the  cover- 
ture ;'*  but  it  need  not,  except  by  statute,'^  exist  at  the 
time  of  his  deatli  ;'^  it  is  sufficient  thougli  he  part  with  it 
on  the  day  of  his  marriage  immediately  after  the  cere- 
mony ;  ^"  biit  if  he  give  a  bond  of  conveyance  before 
marriage  and  convey  in  accordance  therewith  after  the 
marriage,  tlie  second  convej^ance  dates  back  to  the  time 
of  the  bond,  and  there  is  no  dower ;""  nor  is  it  sufficient 
if  he  is  seized  after  a  divorce  a  vinculo.*^ 

1  Houston  I'.  Smith,  88  N.  C.  312,  313.  S.  P.,  Butler  v.  Cheatham,  8 
Bush,  5iW  ;  Atwootl,  22  Pick.  283;  Duranclo,  23  N.  Y.  331  ;  Leach,  21 
Hun,  381  ;  Poor  r.  Horton,  15  Barb.  4*5  ;  Galbraith  7'.  Greene,  13  Serg. 
&  R.  85 ;  Pretts  v.  Richey,  29  Pa.  St.  71 ;  ante,  ?  249. 

2  1  Scribiier  Dow.  249  ;  Park  Dow.  24. 

3  Wlnnlni^ton, 2  Cold.  59,  60 ;  Thompson,  1  Jones,  430,- 431 ;  Beards- 
lee,  5  Barb.  3:24  ;  Perkuis,  JJ  366-369 ;  1  Scribner  Dow.  255-25". 


359  DOWER.  1 252 

4  Witham  v.  Lewis,  1  AVils.  48,  55  ;  Shelley,  4  Brown  Pail.  C.  510  ; 
Park  Dow.  26 ;  1  Scribner  Dow.  257. 

5  3  and  4  Wm.  IV.  ch.  105,  J  2  ;  ante.  |  247. 

6  See  Borland  v.  Marshall,  2  Ohio  St.  308,  313. 

7  McClure  v.  Harris,  12  ilou.  B.  261, 206 ;  Reed  v.  Morrison,  12  Serg. 
&  R.  18,  21. 

8  1  Seiibner  DOW.  267. 

9  Stevens  v.  Smith,  4  Marsh.  J.  J.  64,  65  ;  20  Am.  Dec.  205.  S.  P., 
Green  v.  Siter,  8  Cranch,  247  ;  Bowen  v.  Collins,  15  Ga.  100 ;  Denis,  7 
Blackf.  572  ;  Moun  v.  Edson,  39  Me.  25  ;  Chew,  1  Md.  163,  172  ;  Atwood, 
22  Pick.  2».J;  Green  v.  Chelsea,  24  Pick.  78;  W^ure  ik  Washington,  6 
Sniedesife  M.  737;  Houston  v.  Smith,  88  N.  C.  312,  313;  Borland  v. 
Marshall,  2  Ohio  St.  308  ;  Welch  v.  Buckins,  9  Ohio  St.  331 ;  Secrest  v. 
McKenna,  6  Rich.  Kq.  72.    Compare  Cubtesy,  ante,  i  155. 

10    Wheeler  v.  Smith,  50  Mich.  93,  94. 

n  Picketti'.  Lyles,  5S.  C.  275,  278.  S.  P.,  Kirby  v.  Vantree,  26  Ark. 
368,370;  Sulton  t'.  Jervis,  31  Iiul.  265,  2(i8 ;  Johnston  v.  Miller,  40  Ind. 
376  ;  17  Am.  Rep.  699;  Tyson  v.  Harrington,  6  Ired.  Eq.  329,  332. 

12  See  Kirby  v.  Vantree,  26  Ark.  368,  370  ;  post,  I  255. 

13  Stribling  v.  Ross,  16  111.  122,  124 ;  Talbot  v.  Armstrong,  14  Ind. 
254,  256. 

14  Blood,  23  Pick.  80, 84  ;  Thomas,  10  Ired.  123,  124  ;  Norwood  v. 
Morrow,  4  Dev.  <fe  B.  442,  419  ;  Chester  v.  Greer,  5  Humph.  26, :». 

15  King,  61  Ala.  479,  481 ;  Withed  v.  Mallory,  4  Cush.  138,  140. 

16  Toomey  II..  McLean,.  105  Mass.  122 ;  Randolph  r.  Doss,  3  How. 
(Miss.)  205  ;  Hitchcock  v.  Harrington,  6  Johns.  293;  5  Am.  Dec.  22j; 
Park  Dow.  37  ;  1  Scribuer  Dow.  268. 

17  Johnson  v.  Plume,  77  Ind.  166,  171 ;  McCauley  v.  Grimes,  2  Gill 
&  J.  318,  325  ;  20  Am.  Dec.  4.34. 

18  Gully  V.  Ray,  18  Mon.  B.  107,  114. 

19  Tillman  v.  Spann,  68  Ala.  102, 106. 

20  Cowman  v.  Hall,  3  Gni  &  J.  398,  405. 

21  Boughton  v.  Randall,  Noy,  64;  Sutherland,  69  III.  481,  486; 
Johnson  v.  Plume,  77  Ind.  166,  171  ;  Stanwood  v.  Dunnmg,  14  Me.  290, 
294  ;  McCauley  v.  Grimes,  3  Gill  &  J.  318,  324;  20  Am.  Dec.  4:J4  ;  Raw- 
lings  V.  Lowndes,  34  Md.  639,  646  ;  Smith  v.  McCarty,  119  Mass.  519,  520. 

22  Fontaine  v.  Boatmen's,  57  Mo.  552,  5-38 ;  post,  U  259-261. 

23  Johnson  r.  Plume,  77  Ind.  166,  171  ;  McClure  v.  Harris,  12  Mon. 
B.  261,  266  ;  Gully  v.  Ray,  18  Mon.  B.  107, 114  ;  Gage  v.  Ward,  25  Me.  101, 
103  ;  Glenn  v.  Clark,  53  Md.  580,  605,  609  ;  Rawlings  v.  Lowndes,  34  Md. 
639,  613  ;  Holbrook  v.  Finney,  4  Mas.s.  566,  569  ;  3  Am.  Dec.  243  ;  Clark 
V.  Monroe,  14  Mass.  3.52;  Fontaine  v.  Boatmen's  57  Mo.  552,  558; 
Moore  V.  Esty,  5  N.  H.  479 ;  Stow  v.  Tifft,  15  Johns.  4.59 ;  8  Am.  Dec. 
266 ;  Gilbain  v.  Moore,  4  Leigh,  30,  32 ;  24  Am.  Dec.  704  ;  jwst,  ??  2.59, 
260. 

24  Whea  tley  v.  Calhoun,  12  Leigh,  264,  274  ;  37  Am.  Dec.  654 ;  post, 
li  259,  260. 

25  Glenn  r.  Clark,  53  Md.  580,  605,  606  ;  post,  H  259,  260. 

26  Maybury  v.  Brien,  15  Peters,  21,  37;  Cockerill  v.  Armstrong,  31 
Ark.  580,  584  ;  Chew,  1  Md.  163, 172. 

27  Mavburyr.  Brien,  15 Peters,  21,  .37.  S.  P.,  Cockerill  n.  Armstrong, 
31  Ark.  580,  584  ;  Davis  v.  Logan,  9  Dana,  186;  Chew,  1  Md.  163,  172 ; 


;  2o3  BO-STER.  36C» 

Holbrook  r.  Rjuic-t,  4  Mnss.  596:  3  Am.  I>ec.  5C :  Weir  r.  Tate.  -5 
Ir^:-d.  E-q-  3&*  ?  Tobbe  r.  ViTseman,  2  CMiio  St  3lC  ;  Walker,  6  CokL  5n  : 

->    l>e  r.  liadfcll,  22  Ifo.  202,  aot    S-  P.,  Snnon  r.  lUdfe,  3  Lev.  &4  : 

K    — .tl!  ■     K"-— i-   --    ^-^   'rt  E--^  -   ^\"!:!=^!::.  =•»  Oa.  2«  ;  Bauk  - . 
-        _  -     -  :  "     "    -      r.  a  Me.  412: 

^.  1  Md.  KB. 
-  =«  Miss.  -^41: 

_..,._ ._..:.    ..  ..^^-:-  _    .  » ;„.  .i  I'^ige,  653: 

•}  i ->fi<,  -ii-j ;  V,  ..»..^ijuii  t .  Lrjogscrc^t,  -i  JUi^riis,  4(l§ ;  Hodson  r. 
-  .      :  - .  f  K.  I.  i'>i  ;  pi*?,  j  2*1. 
Jr    C  "new,  1  Aid.  163, 172 ;  cases  tupra.  n.  2S. 

10  1  S'CTibner  Do^w.  337.  AsiB-hea  sratnte  tAk'^  away  nght  of  ?iir- 
vTvorship :  L»iiVis  r.  L<ocan,  S<  Daiia.  1>5 :  Hoior  « 'k  r.  Finne.r,  4  Miiss. 
■>«  :  Z  Am.  iK-c.  --i-" :  J^tur-3  r.  iCaran.  6  Sojt-dts  &  M.  3S3 :  AV<rlr  r. 
Tate,  4  Ire<L  !>}.  a>l ;  E^rrd  r.  Kennedy,  2  btrob.  67. 

31  XoT  hy  hnsband's  assjsninent :  CockeriU  r.  Armstrong,  SI  Ark. 
'.y-  '■  r  ■  M   yrjiiry  r.  Ericu,  15  Peters,  il,  i7. 

~         •  -rr  Dow.  22 :  F^rk  Dow.  56  :  Jackson  r.  Jacob,  U  Bush. 
'.  o  ifnich.  l>j ;  l.:-ech,  £1  Hn.a,  asi ;  BeardsJc^.o  Barb. 
-  .  ij^.,.^  V.  Jacksoa,  50  >'.  T.  16i;  T-nleer,  3  Tenn.  Ch.  3  ;  po?f. 
;  :.:^ 

5?    Houston  r.  Smith,  ss  ?r.  c.  312,  313L    See  Bates,  1  Raym.  Ld.  336: 
V   —  y.-nt  r.  Whipp.  r^Mon.  B.  Co  ;  Eldredge  r.  KorresuU.7i£ass.25:i; 
.  Eastman.  5  Zf .  H.  2i0 ;  Dnnham  r.  Osbom,   1   Paige,  6S4  ; 
...  SL 

--   _ .    c...:,v   i;  X-  f  •!;•      -     ■=;  P.,  Robinson  r.  Codman. 

•4:  Dunham  r.  Angier. 
-         -  -  :  Bruoks  r.  Everett.  13 

•S"7  ;  (jibbous  r.  Britte- 
luu..,  ,>i  ili^-^. :;-:::;  0:ii  .  V^<-.'i7.  ;.  >:.  K.  4^$ :  H*k  r.  Eastman,  h 
X.  li.  240  :  Green  r.  patnam.  1  P.arb.  ."O.i :  House  r.  Jackson,  .50  N.  Y. 
11':  r>-rh:.Tri  .  O;"^  r-.  \  I«:i:?  .  ~'J  :  Weir  r.  Humphries.  4  Ired. 
r      :*       "  '  '  ■  -     .  Thornton,  11  Ohio  St. 

1  Head,  M%  ;  Vanleer.  3 
-         -  ;  po*f,  \  254.    Except  by 

35  Kade  r.  Lanlier,  16  Abb.  Pr.  2f .  S.  287 ;  43  How.  Pr.  382  ;  ante, 

36  Norwood  r.  Morrow,  4  Dev.  <t  E.  447,  445 ;  Chester  r.  Greer,  -5 
Humplu  2ti,  iO;  ante,  5"41i. 

37  Price  r.  Hobbs,  47  Md.  359,  37S. 

3S  Sfwart.  3  Marsh.  J.  J.  4%,  49.  If  marriage  and  assignment  took 
pJuce  the  Slime  duv,  court  prestunes,  in  absence  of  proof,  that  mar- 
riage touic  place  first :  Stewart,  3  Marsh.  J.  J.  45,  4'J. 

Zi  Golly  r.  P^y,  13  Mon.  B.  107,  113  ;  Eawlings  r.  Adams,  7  Md. 
27,  iH. 

-»    Kide  r.  Lanber.  16  App.  Pr.  X.  S.  2S7  :  4S  How.  I>r.  3S2. 

;  253.  The  kinds  of  property  subject  to  dower.  —  Dower 
attaches  to  all  herediiaaients,  corporeal  or  incorporeal, 
which  savor  of  the  realty.'  Thu.s,  dower  may  be  allowed 
in  land.s  and  tenements ;-  in  a  manor ;  ^  in  an  advowson, 


361  DOWER.  \  253 

in  gross  or  appendant  ;*  in  tithes,  pensions,  and  eccle- 
siastical benefits  from  the  crown  ;  *  in  a  rent  service,  rent 
charge,  or  rent  seek;*  in  a  common  certain,  gross  or 
appendant;^  (but  it  seems,  in  things  appendant,  only 
if  endowed  of  the  thing  to  which  they  are  ai?pendant  ;^) 
in  franchises,  parcel  of  an  honor  ;3  in  a  piscary , i'' offi- 
ces,^' a  fair.i-  a  marke;.^  a  dove  house,"  a  mili.i^  a 
ferry, 1*  courts,  fines,  and  heriors,'"  and  estovers.'*  So 
dower  attaches  to  such  mines  as  are  opened  by  the 
husband.'^  or  by  his  heirs  before  the  assignment,^  and 
this,  not  only  to  the  extent  they  have  been  opened,  but 
to  their  full  extent ;  ■^  whether,  too,  they  have  been 
abandoned  or  closed,  or  not ;  ■"  but  she  cannot  open 
mines,^  this  would  be  waste.-'  So,  she  ha,  dower  of 
such  turpentine  trees  as  her  husband  has  boxed  and  of 
enough  others  to  keep  up  the  same  number.^  In  some 
States  statutes  deny  dower  in  .^"ild  lands  ;^  and  it  has 
been  held  that  even  at  common  law  there  would  have 
been  no  dower  in  such  lands. ^  because  it  would  be 
v.aste  to  cut  the  trees,*  and  there  would  be  no  rents 
and  profits  otherwise  ;-^  but  in  many  cases  it  has  been 
held  not  waste  to  clear  wild  lands,  and  dower  has 
accordingly  been  allowed  in  theni.^  But  lands  con- 
nected with  a  dwelling,^'  or  used  for  pasture,^-  or  culti- 
vated at  all.^  are  not  wild  lands.  Dower  attaches  to 
land  covered  with  water,  as  there  can  be  no  waste  of 
such  lands.^*  But  there  is  no  dower  in  the  use  of  sur- 
plus water  of  a  river  for  hydraulic  jjurposes.^  Shares 
in  corporations  are  genei-ally  deemed  personalty,**  and 
no  dower  is  allowed  therein  ;^"  but  in  some  cases, 
whether  on  tlie  ground  that  the  corporate  lands  were 
vested  in  the  individual  shareliolders  and  the  corpora- 
tion merely  managed  them,  or  on  other  grounds,  dower 
has  been  allowed  in  them  as  in  realty.^  So  there  is  no 
dower  in  auuuities,  unless  they  are  charged  on  laiid.^ 
H.  <t  w.  —  31. 


I  253  DOWER.  362 

Formerly  there  was  dower  in  slaves,  by  statute. ^'^ 
There  is  no  dower  in  grass,  fruits,  and  spontaneous 
productions  of  the  soil  growing  at  time  of  liusband's 
death.^'  In  the  next  section  will  be  discussed  wliai 
estate  the  husband  must  have  in  these  A'arious  kinds 
of  property  in  order  that  the  wife  may  liave  dower 
therein. 

1  Buckenridge  v.  Ingram,  2  Ves.  Jr.  652, 604  :  Conner  v.  Shepherd, 
].')  Mass.  164,  167;  1  Scribner  Dow.  pp.  198,  et  seq. ;  Park  Dow.  110-112  ; 
nnte,  i  244,  n.  3.  Sf»e  Hudson  v.  Steere,  9  R.  I.  106;  Leach,  21  Hun, 
381 ;  Gorham  v.  Daniels,  23  Vt.  611. 

2  Stoughton  V.  Leigh,  1  Taunt.  409  ;  Litt.  ?  36. 

3  Bragg,  Godb.  135  ;  Gould-s.  37. 

4  Howard  v.  Cavendish,  Cro.  Jac.  621  ;  Co.  Litt.  32  a. 

5  Thynn,  Style,  99  ;  Co.  Litt.  159  a,  32  a.    See  Ebey,  1  Wash.  216. 

6  Perkins,  ??  345,  347.  See  Stoughton  v.  Leigh,  1  Taunt,  402  ;  Her- 
bert 1'.  Wren,  7  Cranch,  .370;  Boyd  r.  Hunter,  44  Ala.  705;  Chase,  1 
Bland,  200,  225,  226  ;  1  Scribner  Dow.  pp.  373  et  seq. 

7  Perkins,  ?  342  ;  Fitzh.  N.  B.  148. 

8  Park  Dow.  114,  115. 

9  Howard  v.  Cavendish,  Cro.  Jac.  622. 

10  Bracton,  98,  208  ;  Co.  Litt.  32  n. 

11  Style  Pr.  Reg.  122  ;  Fitzh.  N.  B.  18,  149. 

12  Co.  Litt.  .32  n  ;  Fitzh.  X.  B.  8  (K)  n. 

13  Gilbert  Uses,  371.    Compare  Gwynne  v.  Cincinnati,  3  Ohio,  24. 

14  Co.  Litt.  32  a. 

15  Perkins,  §  342 ;  Gilbert  Uses,  371.  Compare  Beaver.s  v.  Smith,  11 
Ala.  20. 

16  Stevens,  3  Dana,  .371,  373. 

17  Co.  Litt.  32  a. 

18  Perkins,  ??  ^\,  343. 

19  Hoby,  1  Vern.  218  ;  Stoughton  r.  Leigh,  1  Taunt.  402  ;  Quaring- 
ton  V.  Arthur,  10  Mees.  &  W.  3;i5  ;  King  v.  Dunsford,  2  Ad.  &  E.  568, 
593. 

20  Lenfers  t'.  Heake,  73  111.  405  ;  24  Am.  Rep.  263. 

21  Moore  v.  Rollins,  45  Me.  493,  494  ;  Billings  v.  Taylor,  10  Pick.  4fii>: 
20  Am.  Dec.  <yV-\:  Findlay  v.  Smith,  6  Munf.  1.S4;'8  Am.  Dec.  733; 
Crouch  V.  Puryear,  1  Rand.  258 ;   10  Am.  Dec.  528. 

22  Coates  r.  Choevcr,  1  Cowon,460. 

23  1  Scribner  Dow.  205  ;  I'ark  Dow.  117-120. 

24  King  ti.  I)unsford,  2  Ad.  &  E.  .568,  .573 ;  ijost,  §  264. 

25  Carr,  4  Dev.  &  B.  179. 

26  Me.  R.  S.  1871,  ?  2  ;  Mags.  P.  S.  1882,  p.  741,  ?  4  ;  ante,  ?  247. 

27  Conner  v.  Shepherd,  15  Ma.ss.  164,  167  ;  Webb  v.  Townsend,  I 
Pick.  21 ;  11  Am.  Dec.  132. 


333  DOWEU.  g  264 

2S    Allen  V.  MoCoy,  8  Ohio.  418,  -13!  ;  jjo.s/,  2  :G4. 

2tf    Conner  v.  ShepJicnl,  15  Mass.  lC-1, 167. 

:«  Allen  V.  McCoy,  8  Ohio,  418,  464.  See  1  Scrlbner  Dow.  214  ;  Pike 
V.  Uuderliill,  .4  ArU.  1-4  ;  Cliapman  v.  Shroeder,  10  G;i.  :i-l  ;  Schaebly, 
20  111.  116;  HicKiUiiii  v.  Irvine,  .i  Dana,  121;  Campbell,  J  Doug.  Hi  ; 
Brown  v.  Kicbards,  17  N.  J.  Eq.  Si;  Jackson  r.  tSellick,  %  Johns.  26-  ; 
Jaciison  r.  Biowuson,  7  Johns.  227;  5  Am.  Dee.  2.5 S ;  Walker  i'. 
.Sjnuyier,  10  Wend.  480;  Joyner  v.  Speed,  6S  ^f.  C.  2.^(1;  Hastings  i'. 
C'runckleton,  S  YeatL-s,  261;  Wilson  c.  .Smith,  o  Yerg.  :.7;»;  Owen  v. 
Hyde,  6  Yerg.  3a4  ;  28  Am.  Dec.  4U7 ;  Mndlay  v.  Smith,  6  Munf.  134  ; 
s  Am.  Dec.  733. 

31    Shattuck  V.  Grey,  23  Pick.  8R,  92  ;  White  v.  Willis,  7  Pick.  1!I3. 

C2    Demham  i'.  Angler,  20  Me.  242,  240 ;  Moslicr,  15  Me.  ."71. 

3.{  Stevens  v.  Perley,  24  Me.  94  ;  Johnson  v.  Perley,  2  2\.  H.  56  ;  9 
Am.  Dec.  35. 

34  Brackett  v.  Unknown,  53  Me.  238,  246. 

35  Kingman  v.  Sparrow,  12  Barb.  201,  20J. 

36  Boone  Corporations,  J  105  ;  1  Scribner  Dow.  214. 

37  Weekly,  2  Younge,  &  C.  281  ;  Johns,  1  Ohio  St.  3.W,  331.  S.  P., 
Bradley  v.  Holsworth,  3  Mees.  &  W.  42:; ;  Knigbt  v.  Barber,  Ifi  Mees. 
<te  W.  66;  Wiitsun  r.  .spratley,  28  Eng.  iV;  1..  Eq.  507  ;  Planters'  v. 
Merchants',  4  Ala.  75:f ;  McDougal  v.  Hepijuni,  r,  Fla.  5(!S  ;  Knssell  v. 
Temple,  3  Dane  Abr.  108,  i'i  2-6;  Tipptts  i:.  Walker,  4  Mass.  596; 
Howe  V.  Starkweather,  17  Mass.  243  ;  Tisdale  v.  Harris,  2u  Pick.  9  ; 
Hutchins  c.  Stiite,  12  Met.  421;  Denton  v.  Livingstoji,  !i  Johns.  96; 
6  Am.  Dec.  264  ;  Heart  r.  State,  2  Dev.  Ch.  Ill  ;  Staymaker  v.  Gettvs- 
burg,  10  Pa.  St.  373  ;  Gilpin  v.  Howell,  5  Pa.  St.  .'.7 ;  14  Am.  Dec.  720  ; 
Arnold  V.  Buggies,  1  K.  I.  165  ;  Brightvvell  v   Mallory,  10  Yerg.  196. 

38  Drybutter  v.  Bartholemew,  2  P.  Wms.  127;  Townsend  v.  Ash, 
3  Atk.  3;*,  337,  338;  Bligh  v.  Brent,  2  Younge  &  C.  268  294,  295  ;  Welles 
V.  Cowles,  2  Conn.  567  ;  4  Conn.  182;  10  Am.  Dec.  115;  Copeland,  7 
Bush,  ;{49,  351  ;  Price,  6  Dana,  107;  34  Am.  Dec.  608  ;  Binney,  2  Bland, 
99,  145,  146;  Cape  Sable,  3  Bland,  6.56,  670;  Hurst  v.  Meesoii,  4  Watts, 
346. 

.39    Robinson  v.  Townshend,  3  Gill  &  J.  413. 

40  1  Scribner  Dow.  pp.  224-226. 

41  Ralston,  3  Iowa,  533  ;  Kain  v.  Fisher,  6  N.  Y.  597. 

I  254.  Kinds  of  estates  subject  to  dower.  —  Ab.soiute 
fee-.simple  estates  are  subject  to  dower.i  So  are  estates 
tail,  except  in  the  case  of  a  fee-tail  special  if  the 
wife's  issue  is  excluded ;  ^  but  fee-tail  estates  are  gen- 
erally abolished  in  the  United  States  and  the  first  donee 
is  given  either  a  life  estate  or  an  estate  in  fee  simple  ;^ 
in  the  latter  case  his  wife  has  dower,*  but  not  in  the 
former.^  A  condition  annexed  to  an  estate  in  fee,  that 
it  shall  not  be  subject  to  dovver,  is  repugnant  and  void 
at  common  law,*^  but  this  has  been  changed  by  Statute 


g  2a4  DOWER.  364 

in  England.'  If  one  esta'Le  in  fee  is  exchanged  for  an- 
other estate  in  fee,  the  widow  must,  both  at  common 
law  8  and  by  statute,^  elect  to  take  dower  in  either  the 
original  or  tlie  exchanged  estate,  she  cannot  have  dower 
in  both ;  but  tliere  must  have  been  a  teclinical  ex- 
change :  the  estates  mvist  have  been  of  tlie  same  quan- 
tity,i°  and  the  deed  must  liave  been  one  of  excliange  ; " 
for,  wliere  A  and  B  exchanged  lands  by  two  ordinary 
deeds,  A's  widow  was  allowed  dower  in  both  proper- 
ties,!-  but  the  properties  need  not  have  been  of  the  same 
value. 1^  Determinable  fees  are  generally  subject  to 
dower,"  excej^t  tliat  if  the  estate  determines  before  the 
husband's  death  dower  does  not  become  consummate 
at  all.'^  More  particularly,  if  tlie  estate  determines  by 
natural  limitation,  the  wife  has  dower  as  if  it  had  not 
determined  at  all,^^  as  where  tlie  estate  escheats  to  tlie 
State  for  want  of  heirs,  tlie  wife  continues  tlie  husband's 
holding  and  has  her  dower.i'  If  it  is  determined  by 
the  entry  of  one  who  has  a  superior  title,  dower  deter- 
mines too.*"  When  a  base  or  qualified  fee  ceases,  so 
does  dower.^9  If  the  estate  is  determinable  under  a 
power  of  appointment,  dower  ceases  if  tlie  power  is 
exercised,  otherwise  not.-"  (Of  course  there  is  no  dower 
at  all  in  a  mere  life  estate,  though  the  power  of  appoint- 
ing the  fee  be  annexed.'-')  If  the  estate  be  conditional, 
and  be  determined  by  entry  for  forfeiture,  dower  is  de- 
stroyed.^^ If  the  estate  is  determinable  under  collat- 
eral limitations,  dower  is  determined  when  the  event 
hapiseiis.'^  Whether  an  estate  determinable  under  a 
conditional  limitation  or  by  an  executory  devise,  con- 
tinues subject  to  dower  after  it  has  determined,  is  dis- 
puted, though  the  weight  of  opinion  seems  to  be  that  it 
does."*  Estates  in  remainder  or  reversion  expectant  on 
a  freehold  are  not  subject  to  dower,^  except  by  stat- 
ute,'^"^  but  if  expectant  on  a  leasehold,  they  are ; "   if, 


365  DOWER.  §  234 

however,  the  precedent  estate  determines  during  cover- 
ture while  the  liusband  has  tlie  inlieritance,  inchoate 
dower  at  once  arises ;  '■^^  if  the  intervening  estate  is 
merely  a  contingent  remainder,  dower  attaches  but  is 
defeated  if  the  remainder  vests. "^  Hence  there  can 
be  no  dower  in  lands  assigned  for  dower .^°  Estates  in 
common  31  and  in  coi^arcenary  •"'' are  subject  to  dower, 
but  joint  estates  are  not,^^  There  is  no  dower  in  trust 
estates,**  or  in  equitable  estates  at  common  law,*^  or  in 
partnersliip  estates,*^  or  in  life  estal;e3,  whether  for  the 
life  of  the  tenant*^  or  pw?"  autre  vie,^^  or  in  estates  at 
will,"^  or  in  estates  for  years,'"  except  by  statute,'*^  or 
an  estate  of  iire-emi^tion.'^ 

1  Conner  v.  Slipphord,  15  Mass.  1G4,  1C7  ;  Steveus  v.  Owen,  25  Me. 
iM  ;  1  Soribiier  Dow.  2sl. 

2  Chew,  1  Md.  lO'?.  172  ;  Spanglcr  v.  Stanler.  1  Md.  Ch.  o6,  33  ; 
Smitii,  2J  Pa.  St.  y  ;  ante,  '^  246  ;  1  iScribner  Dow.  227,  281. 

3  See  discus.sion,  1  .Scribner  Dow.  281, 282. 

4  Chew,  1  Md.  163,  172  ;  Kennedy,  23  X.  J.  L.  185  ;  supra,  n.  1. 

5  Buriss  v.  Page,  12  Mo.  353  ;  infra,  n.  C7. 
G    Mildmaj',  6  Coke,  41  a.  ;  Co.  Litt.  424  a. 

7  3  and  4  Wm.  IV.  ch.  105,  ?  C. 

8  Butler,  3  Leon,  271 ;  Park  Dow.  201  ;  Perkins,  g  319  ;  Co.  Litt. 
31  6. 

9  Ark.  Dig.  1874,  U  2112-2114  ;  III.  R.  S.  ISSO,  p.  427,  ?  17  ;  Mich.  R.  S. 
)Sil,  I  TM  ;  N.  Y.  R.  .S.  1882,  p.  211)7,  ^  3  ;  (Stevens  r.  Smith,  4  Marsh.  J.  .7. 
C4  ;  2U  Am.  Dec.  2U5  ;  Mahoney  v.  Young,  3  Dana,  .588  ;  28  Am.  Dec.  114. 

10  Wilco.x  V.  Randall,  7  Barb.  633  ;  1  Scribner  Dow.  284. 

11  Cass  i\  Thompson,  1  X.  H.  65,  67  ;  8  Am.  Dec.  30. 

12  Cass  V.  Thompson,  1  N.  H.  65,  67  ;  S  Am.  Dec.  36. 

13  1  Scribner  Dow.  284. 

14  Wash.  Real.  Prop.  131,  208  ;  infra,  notes  16,  et  seq. 

15  1  Scribner  Dow.  320. 

16  Park  Dow.  157  ;  1  Scribner  Dow.  286  ;  Northcutt  v.  Wliipp,  12 
Mon.  B.  73  ;  Lawrence  v.  Brown,  5  N.  Y.  31)4  ;  Fowler  v.  Cirilnn,  3 
Sand.  385. 

17  Park  Dow.  1.58  ;  1  Scribner  Dow.  237. 

18  Countess  v.  Vanloro,  Winch,  77  ;  1  Scribner  Dow.  230. 

19  5I.achcll  }\  Clark,  2  Raym.  778  ;  2  Salk.  619  ;  Whiting.  4  Conn.  173  ; 
Jackson  v.  Kip,  8  X.  J.  L.  241. 

20  Ray  r.  Pung,  5  Barn.  <fe  Aid.  .561  ;  7  Eng.  C.  L.  103  ;  Chinnnbbee 
V.  Nicks,  3  Port.  362;  Thompson  v.  Vance.  1  Met.  (Kv.)070;  7  Am. 
Law  Reg.  222  ;  Link  r.  Edmnndson,  19  Mo.  4S7  ;  Hawley  v.  James,  5 
Paige,  JJ-i,  455  ;  Peay,  3  Rich.  Eq.  40D. 


g  25j  dower.  363 

21  Thompson  v.  Vance.  Met.  (Ky.)  G70  ;  7  Am.  Law  Reg.  222  ;  Col- 
lias  V.  Curlisle,  7  Mon.  B.  l-l  ;  McGaughey  v.  Henry,  15  Mon.  B.  .38.'J. 

22  Moore  v.  Estv,  5  N.  H.  479 ;  Bearclslee,  5  Barb.  324  ;  1  Scribner 
Dow.  2yi  ;  Park  Dow.  1.>1. 

23  1  Scribner  Dow.  2^7  ;  Park  Dow.  165-167. 

24  See  discussion,  1  Scribner  Dow.  2!)8,  et  seq. 

25  Moorlv  V.  King,  2  Bing.  447  ;  0  Eng.  C.  L.  475  :  Barker,  2  Sim.  249 ; 
Bufkworth  v.  Thirlkell,  1  Coll.  Juris.  :«2  ;  3  Bos.  &  P.  652.  n  :  Kflwards 
r.  Bibb,  54  AJa.  475  ;  ISorthcutt  v.  Whipp,  12  Mon.  B.  65  ;  Hillearv,  2fi 
M(l.  274,  287  ;  Arlams  v.  Beekman.  1  Paige,  631  ;  Weller.  2S  Barb.  .588  ; 
Evans. 9  Pa.  St.  190  ;  Lovett,  10  Phia.  -537  ;  Milledge  v.  Lamar,  4  Desaus. 
617.  637,  645;  Jones  v.  Hughes,  27  Gratt.  560;  Medley,  27  Gratt.  568  ; 
Houston  V.  Smith,  88  N.  C.  312,  313  ;  ante,  i  252. 

26  Cote,  89  Pa.  St.  235. 

27  Bates,  1  Raym.  Ld.  326  ;  Boyd  v.  Hunter,  44  Ala.  705  ;  1  Greenl. 
Cruise,  162. 

28  Co.  Lltt.  29  a. ;  1  Scribner  Dow.  2.34. 

29  1  Scribner  Dow.  246. 

30  Durando,  23  N.  Y.  331 ;  32  Barb.  529  ;  9  Am.  Law  Reg.  630  ;  post, 
§255. 

31  Chew,  1  Md.  163,  172  ;  ante,  §  252. 

32  Lee  v.  Lindell,  27  Mo.  202,  20G  ;  ante,  ?  2.52. 

33  Maybury  ii.  Brien,  15  Peters,  21,  37  ;  ante,  2.52. 

34  Cowm.an  v.  Hill,  3  Gill  <fe  J.  398,  40,5.  S.  P.,  Powell  v.  Monson, 
3  Mason,  .364  :  Bailev  v.  West,  41  III.  290  ;  Dean  v.  Mitchell,  4  Marsh. 
J.J.  451 ;  White  v.  Drew,  42  Mo.  561  ;  ante,  'i  252. 

35  Gully  V.  Ray,  18  Mon.  B.  107,  113  ;  post,  ?  256. 

36  If  icoll  V.  Ogden,  20  111.  323  ;  post,  I  2.57. 

37  Exton  V.  St.  John,  Finch,  368  ;  Bowles  v.  Poore,  1  Bulst.  135  ; 
Low  V.  Burron,  3  P.  Wms.  262  ;  People  v.  Gillis,  24  Wend.  201  ;  Litt. 
?  5G  ;  Park  Dow.  48,  58  ;  1  Scribner  Dow.  359. 

38  Low  V.  Burron,  3  P.  Wms.  262;  Edwards  v.  Bibb,  .54  Ala.  475; 
Thompson  v.  Vance,  1  Met.  (Kv.i  li(il) ;  Fisher  v.  (irimes,  1  Smedes  & 
M.  107;  Burris  v.  Page,  17  Mo.  358;  Gillis  v.  Brown,  5  Cowen,  388; 
Knickerhacker  v.  Seymour, 46  Barb.  198  ;  Alexander  v.  Cunningham, 
5  I  red.  430. 

39  4  Coke,  22  a,  22  6  ;  1  Scribner  Dow.  369  ;  1  Wash.  Real  Prop.  191. 

40  Spnngler  v.  Stanler,  1  M<\.  Ch.  36.  37.  S.  P.,  Goodwin,  .33  Conn. 
314  ;  Wai-H  r.  Washington,  6  SiniMics  iV  "SI.  7.37  ;  Joelckner?'.  Hudson, 

•1  Saml.  215;  Ri'vnolds  r.  Com.  Stark  Co.  5  Ohio,  204  ;  North  ?>.  Rossa, 
13  Ohio,  2:34,  363 ';  Murdock  v.  Itatcliff,  7  Ohio,  119. 

41  Mass.  P.  S.  1882,  p.  735,  ?  2  ;  Abbott  v.  Bosworth,  36  Ohio  St.  605. 

42  Drennan  v.  Walker,  21  Ark.  .539  ;  Wooley  v.  Magic,  26  III.  526  ; 
Davenport  v.  Fauer,  2  111.  .314  ;  Longworthy  v.  Heeb,  46  Iowa,  64  ; 
Bowers  v.  Keesecker,  14  Iowa,  301 ;  Wells  v,  Moore,  16  Mo.  478. 

I  255.  Dos  de  dote  peti  non  debet. — As  dower  when 
assigned  is  a  life  estate,^  the  inheritance  in  lands  as- 
signed for  dower  is  subject  to  a  freehold,  and  therefore 


367  DOWER.  g  255 

another  dower  cannot  be  assigned  therein ;  ^  hence  the 
rule  —  Dos  de  dote  petl  non  debet J^  This  is  strictly  true 
when  the  lands  have  come  by  devise*  or  descent,*  for 
in  such  case  the  ancestor  died  seized,  and  the  widow's 
seisin  is  but  a  continuation  of  his,^  the  assignment  dat- 
ing back  to  the  time  of  his  death  ;'  but  when  the  land 
has  been  aliened  by  the  husband  during  his  life,  his 
alienee  becomes  seized,  and  if  such  alienee  marries  be- 
fore the  alienor's  widow  has  her  dower  assigned,^  the 
requisites  concur,®  and  his  wife's  inchoate  dower  at- 
taches, and  when  he  dies  she  has  dower  out  of  dower.i" 
So  if  tlie  widow  of  the  heir  has  her  dower  assigned  be- 
fore the  widow  of  tlie  ancestor  has  her  dower  assigned, 
though  the  former  dower  ceases  wlien  the  latter  is 
assigned,  it  revives  again  when  tlie  latter  ceases.^i  So 
in  any  case,  if  the  widow  dies  before  tlio  heir,  devisee, 
or  iDurcliaser  dies  or  aliens  tlie  inheritance,  the  widow 
of  such  heir,  devisee,  or  purchaser,  will  of  course  have 
her  dower.i-  Tlie  same  thing  hapi)ens  if  the  widow, 
instead  of  dying,  waives,  forfeits,  or  otlierwise  deter- 
mines her  dower.12  If  the  assignment  of  the  tirst  dower 
has  not  been  by  metes  and  bounds,  an  analogous  re- 
sult is  sought  to  be  obtained  by  calculation. '* 

1  Moore  v.  Mayor,  8  N.  Y.  110, 113  ;  59  Am.  Dec.  473  ;  post,  I  26-1. 

2  Windham  v.  Portland,  4  Mass.  384,  383. 

3  Glanv.  Lib.  6,  ch.  16  ;  Perkins,  ?  315  ;  Park  Dow.  1.54-156 ;  1  Scrib- 
ner  Dow.  324  ;  D'Arcy  v.  Blake,  2  ScUoales  &  L.  387. 

4  See  Steel  v.  La  Framboise,  68  111.  456;  McLeerv,  65  Me.  172; 
20  Am.  Kep.  083  ;  Durando,23  >'.  Y.  331 ;  !(  Am.  L:iw  Reg.  631) ;  Reitzel 
V.  Eckard,  65  N.  C.  673;  Peckham  v.  Howden,  8  R.  I.  160  ;  Apple,  1 
Head,  348. 

5  See  Kitchens,  2  Vern.  403  ;  Robinson  ?'.  Miller,  2  Mon.  B.  284, 
288  ;  Beekman  v.  Hudson,  20  Wend.  53. 

6  Moore  v.  Mayor,  8  N.  Y.  110,  113  ;  59  Am.  Dec.  473  ;  post.  I  264. 

7  See  Robinson  v.  Miller,  2  Mon.  B.  284,  288  ;  Gear  v.  Hamblin,  1 
Me.  54,  56  ;  1  Scribner  Dow.  331-3:«  ;  Park  Dow.  156. 

8  See  Cregier,  1  Barb.  Ch.  598,  602 

9  Ante,  i  249. 

10  Bustard,  4  Coke,  122  n  ;  Geer  v.  Hamblin,  1  Me.  54,  56  ;  Manning 
V.  Laboree,  33  Me.  343  ;  Durando,  23  N.  Y.  331 ;  Cregier,  I  Barb.  Ch. 


§  256  DOWER.  36S 

598,  602 ;  Dunham  v.  Osborn,  1  Paige,  C34  ;  Reitzel  tK  Eckard,  65  N.  C. 
673. 

11  Cregier,  1  Barb.  Ch.  508,  602  ;  1  Scribner  Dow.  327. 

12  Bear  v.  Snj-der,  11  Wend.  502  ;  1  Scribner  Dow.  .326. 

13  Oeer  v.  Hamblin,  1  Me.  54,  56;  Elwood  v.  Klock,  13  Barb.  50. 
But  see  Leavitt  v.  Laniphrey,  13  Pick.  382  ;  23  Am.  Dec.  685. 

14  See  Fisher  r.  Grimes.  1  Smedes  &  M.  107  ;  Dunliam  i:  Osborn, 
1  Paige,  634,  636 ;  1  Scribner  Dow.  329. 

g  256.  Dower  in  equitable  estates- — At  common  law 
dower  attached  onlj'  to  legal  estates  ^ — all  kinds  of 
uses  and  trusts  were  exempt ;  ^  for  in.stance,  tru.sts  cre- 
ated by  deed  oi  will,^  an  equity  of  redemption,*  or 
property  which  has  been  jsaid  for  but  of  which  the 
deed  has  not  been  given.^  The  common-law  rule  still 
exists  in  Connecticut,^  Delaware,'  Florida,^  Georgia,^ 
Maine,!"  Massachu.setts,ii  Michigan, ^^  New  Hamp- 
shire,!^  Oregon,^*  South  Carolina, '^  Vermont,i^  and 
Wisconsin ;  i'  except  that  in  Massachusetts  dower  ex- 
ists in  an  equity  of  redemption  by  statute, '^  and  in 
property  in  which  the  husband  has  a  perfect  and  com- 
plete equitable  title  by  con.struction.^^  On  the  other 
hand,  the  common-law  rule  has  never  been  followed 
in  Louisiana.'^**  It  has  been  abolished  by  statute  im- 
pliedly in  Arkansas,"  and  expressly  in  England,'^ 
Alabama,^  Illinois,  ^i  Kentucky, ^5  Maryland,'^  Mis- 
souri," New  Jersey, ^8  New  York,^^  North  Carolina,^'* 
Ohio,^i  Rhode  Island,^^  Tennessee,^^  Virginia,^*  and 
West  Virginia.^*  The  object  of  these  statutes  is  to  rem- 
edy the  common  law,  and  they  therefore  applj^  to  all 
equitable  estates,^*  even  to  those  owned  by  the  husband 
before  the  passage  of  the  act,  if  the  right  of  no  third 
party  has  intervened.^'  But  equitable  estates  must  be 
distinguished  from  equitable  rifflits;^'^  in  a  mere  right 
there  is  no  dower.^^  It  is  therefore  generally  said  that 
in  order  to  entitle  the  wife  to  dower  the  husband's 
equity  must  be  perfect  and  complete*" — it  must  be  an 


369  DOWER.  §  258 

interest  which  would  pass  to  his  heirs,  not  a  mere  right 
of  action  which  would  pass  to  his  personal  representa- 
tive.*i  Thus,  there  is  dower  in  land  which  the  husband 
has  bought  and  for  which  he  has  paid,  but  tlie  deed  of 
which  he  has  lost  before  recording  it;^'  so  there  is 
dower  in  an  equity  of  redemption,*^  whether  the  mort- 
gage was  made  before  or  after  marriage,"  and  with  or 
without  the  wife's  consent ;  *'^  but  if  made  before  mar- 
riage or  with  her  consent,  she  must  after  his  death 
contribute  ratably  towards  redemption, *8  and  if  the 
proiJerty  is  sold,  is  dowerable  only  out  of  the  suri^lus.*^ 
It  must  be  such  an  equitable  estate  that  equity  would 
decree  the  legal  title  ;''8  there  is  no  dower  when  the 
trust,*^  or  contract,50  being  by  parol,  is  not  enforcible 
in  equity.  In  the  case  of  a  contract  of  i^urchase,  when 
the  husband  has  paid  all  the  purcliase  money ,^i  and  is 
entitled  to  the  specific  performance  of  the  agreement  to 
give  a  deed  for  the  land,*^  the  wife  has  dower ;  and 
when  he  has  paid  none  of  the  purchase  money,  she  has 
no  dower ;  ^  but  whether  she  has  dower  when  he  has 
paid  a  portion  of  the  isurchase  money  is  disputed,  some 
courts  liolding  that  all  the  purchase  money  must  be 
paid,=*  otiiers  denying  this.^^  The  true  rule  seems  to 
be,  that  when  the  husband's  contract  gives  him  the 
right  to  the  property  only  after  payment  of  all  the  pur- 
chase money,  there  is  no  dower  unless  it  has  all  been 
paid ;  '^^  but  when  he  has  received  possession  of  the 
property,*'  and  the  vendor  has  retained  the  title  only 
as  security,  or  has  relied  on  his  lien  for  the  purchase 
monej^  the  wife  has  dower,*^  subject  to  the  vendor's 
rights ;  *9  and  after  her  husband's  death  has  a  riglit  to 
call  on  his  personal  representatives  to  pay  the  balance, 
she  contributing  her  share,™  or  if  the  property  is  sold 
to  pay  such  balance,  she  is  to  be  endowed  out  of  the 
surplus.^'    But  there  is  no  dower  in  any  equitable  es- 


g  256  DOWER.  370 

tate  of  which  the  husband  is  not  seized  at  the  time  of 
his  death, ^'^  for  if  he  has  aliened  it  absolutely,^  or  by 
way  of  niortgage,^'  or  has  subjected  it  to  any  other 
lien,*^  the  wife's  dower  is  defeated  absolutely  or  pro 
tanto.^  Still,  a  mere  agreement  to  convey  will  not  de- 
feat dower,  except  to  the  extent  of  the  purchase  money 
paid  thereupon  ;  ^  and  if  the  husband  has,  by  means  of 
his  wife's  joinder,  put  a  mortgage  on  all  of  a  jiiece  of 
property,  he  cannot  Avithout  lier  joinder  dispose  of  the 
equity  of  redemption  so  as  to  defeat  dower  therein  ;  *8 
so  the  husband  may  rescind  a  contract  of  purchase 
before  it  has  been  fully  executed,  without  subjecting 
the  property  to  dower.^  If  after  the  husband  has 
aliened  the  equitable  title  he  receives  the  legal  title,  he 
holds  such  title  in  trust  for  his  assignee,  and  there  is  no 
dower  in  it.™ 

1  Chaplin,  3  P.  Wms.  22n,  234  ;  D'Arcy  v.  Blake,  2  Schoales  *  L. 
387,  3S8,  :isii  ;  Smith  v.  Artains,  5  DeGex,  M.  <fe  G.  712  ;  Powtlrell  ?•. 
Jones,  2  Smith  ct  (;if.  tnT  ;  Ransom,  17  Fed.  Rep.  3:5],  3;«  ;  Stelle  v. 
Carroll,  12  Peters,  2(il  ;  P.lukeney  v.  Ferguson,  20  Ark.  547  ;  Gully 
1'.  Ray,  IH  Mon.  B.  107,  113  ;  Mann  v.  Edson,  39  Me.  25;  cases  cited 
ire/ra,"note8  2-17. 

2  1  Scribner  Dow.  413.  Not  in  money  to  be  laid  out  in  land; 
Crabtree  v.  Bramble,  3  Atk.  680,  687  ;  ante,  ?  136. 

3  Chaplin,  3  P.  Wms.  229,  234. 

4  Dixon  V.  Saville,  1  Bro.  C.  C.  320,  327 ;  Maybury  v.  Brien,  15 
Peters,  21,  38. 

5  WUliams  v.  Barrett,  2  Cranch  C.  C.  673. 

6  Conn.  R.  S.  1875,  p.  376  ;  Deforest,  1  Root,  .50  ;  Calder  v.  Bull,  2 
Boot,  50  ;  Stewart,  5  Conn.  317  ;  Steadman  i\  Fortune,  5  Conn.  462. 

7  Del.  R.  L.  1874,  p.  533  ;  Conroy,  3  Del.  Ch.  407. 

8  Fla.  Dig.  1881,  p.  475. 

9  Ga.  Code  1873,  p.  304  ;  Chapman  v.  Shroeder,  10  Ga.  321  ;  Green 
V.  Causev,  10  Ga.  4;B  ;  Bowen  v.  Collins,  15  Ga.  100 ;  Hart  v.  McCollum, 
28  Ga.  478  ;  Aaron  v.  Boyne,  28  Ga.  107  ;  Day  v.  Solomon,  40  Ga.  32. 

10  Me.  R.  S.  1871,  p.  756;  Hamlin,  19  Me.  141  ;  Mann  ?'.  Edson,  .39 
Me.  25  ;  Freeman,  39  Me.  426  ;  Thorndlke  v.  Spear,  31  Me.  91 ;  Kidder 
V.  Blaisdell,  45  Me.  461. 

11  Mass.  P.  S.  1882,  p.  740,  ?  3  ;  Reed  v.  W  hitney,  7  Gray,  533,  538. 

12  Mirh.  R.  S.  18S2,  ??  57,  33  ;  Campbell  v.  Clark,  2  Doug.  141  ;  May 
V.  Sprecht,  1  Mann.  187. 

13  N.  H.  R.  S.  1878,  p.  474  ;  Hobbinson  v.  Dumas,  42  N.  H.  296. 

14  Oreg.  Dig.  1874,  p.  5S4  ;  Farnum  v.  Loomis,  2  Greg.  29. 


371  DOWER.  g  256 

15  S.  C.  R.  S.  1882,  ?  1801  ;  Secrest  v.  McKenna,  6  Rich.  Eq.  72  ; 
Spreight  v.  Meigs,  1  Brev.  486 ;  Peay,  2  Rich.  Eq.  40'J. 

16  Vt.  R.  S.  1880,  p.  449  ;  Jenny,  24  Vt.  324 ;  Thayer,  14  Vt.  107 ; 
39  Am.  Ueu.  211 ;  Ladd,  14  Vt.  185  ;  Gorham  v.  Daniels,  23  Vt.  600. 

17  Wis.  R.  S.  1878,  p.  626. 

18  Reed  v.  Whitney,  7  Gray,  533,  537.    See  Mich.  R.  S.  1882,  §  5735. 

19  Reed  v.  Whitney,  7  Gray,  533,  5.38  ;  Hall  !•.  Munn,  4  Gray,  132. 

20  Shoemaker  v.  Walker,  2  Serg.  &  R.  o.54  ;  Reed  v.  Morrison,  12 
Serg.  &  R.  13  ;  Kellv  v.  Mehan,  2  Yeates,  515  ;  Jones  v.  Patterson,  12 
Pa.  St.  149,  1-54  ;  Pritts  v.  Richey,  29  Pa.  St.  71,  76  ;  Dubs,  31  Pa.  St.  149 ; 
Junk  I'.  Canon,  34  Pa.  St.  286. 

21  Kirby  v.  Vantreece,  26  Ark.  368,  370. 

22  3  WUliam  IV.  ch.  105,  i  2. 

23  Ala.  Code,  1876  J  2232  ;  Gillespie  v.  Somerviile,  3  Stewt.  >fe  P.  347  ; 
Allen,  4  Ala.  5o(; ;  Edniondson  c.  Montague,  14  Ala.  370;  Crabb  r. 
Pratt,  15  Ala.  843  ;  Parks  v.  Brooks,  16  Ala.  529  ;  Harrison  v.  Boyd,  36 
Ala.  503. 

24  111.  R.  S.  1880,  p.  425  ;  Davenport  v.  Farrar,  1  Scam.  314  ;  Sisk  v. 
Smith,  1  Gilm.  503  ;  Owen  v.  Robbins,  19  111.  .549  ;  Atkin  v.  Merrill,  39 
111.  62  ;  Stow  V.  Steel,  45  111.  328  ;  Greenbaum  v.  Austrian,  70  111.  591. 

25  Ky.  R.  S.  1881,  p.  527,  ?  2  ;  Pugh  r.  Bell,  2  Mon.  126  :  Stevens  r. 
Smith,  4  Marsh.  J.  J.  64  ;  20  Am.  Dec-,  205  ;  Dean  v.  Mitchell,  4  Marsh. 
J.  J.  451 ;  Hamilton  v.  Hughes,  6  Marsh.  J.  J.  .581  ;  Lindsey  v.  Stevens, 

5  Dana,  104  ;  Lawson  !'.  Morton,  6  Dana,  -t'l ;  Brewer  v.  Van  Arsdale, 

6  Dana,  204  ;  Robinson  v.  Miller,  1  Mon.  B.  88,  91  ;  Heed  v.  Ford,  16 
Mon.  B.  114  ;  Gully  v.  Ray,  18  Mon.  B.  107. 

26  Md.  R.  S.  1878,  p.  397;  Hopkins  v.  Frev,  2  Gill,  3.59;  Miller  v. 
Stump,  3  Gill,  304,311;  Spangler  v.  Stanler,  1  Md.  Ch.  30;  Bowie  v. 
Berry,  1  Md.  Ch.  452  ;  3  Md.  Ch.  359  ;  Purdv,  3  aid.  Ch.  547  ;  Steuart 
V.  Beard,  4  Md.  Ch.  319  ;  Lynn  v.  Gephart,  27  Md.  547  ;  Glenn  v.  Clark, 
53  Md.  680,  604. 

27  Mo.  R.  S.  1879,  p.  363 ;  Duke  v.  Brandt,  51  Mo.  221,  225  ;  Hart  v. 
Logan,  49  Mo.  47. 

28  N.  J.  Rev.  1877,  p.  320  ;  Yen  v.  Mercereau,  18  N.  J.  L.  387,  330  ; 
Boyd  V.  Thompson,  21  N.  J.  L.  58,  61  ;  22  N.  J.  L.  513,  ^S. 

29  N.  Y.  R.  S.  1882,  p.  2196  ;  Hicks  v.  Stebbins,  3  Lans.  39  ;  Johnson 
V.  Thomas,  2  Paige,  377  ;  Hawlev  r.  James,  5  Paige,  318  ;  Church,  3 
Sand.  Ch.  434  ;  Coster  v.  Clarke,  3  Edw.  Ch.  423  ;  McCartee  v.  Teller,  2 
Paige,  511. 

30  N.  C.  R.  S.  1873,  p.  839 ;  Klutts,  5  Jones  Eq.  80 ;  Thompson,  1 
Jones,  430. 

31  Ohio  R.  S.  1880,  p.  1048;  Abbott  v.  Bosworth,  .36  Ohio  St.  605; 
Miller  r.  Wilson,  15  Ohio,  105  ;  Rands  )'.  Kendall,  loOhio,  671;  Smiley 
V.  Wright,  2  Ohio,  506  ;  McDonald  v.  Aten,  1  Ohio  St.  293. 

32  R.  I.  P.  S.  1882,  p.  037. 

33  Tenn.  R.  S.  1873,  J  2398. 

34  Va.  Code  1873,  p.  8.53;  Ronton,  1  Hen.  &  M.  92;  Claiborne  v. 
Henderson,  3  Hen.  &  M.  .322  ;  Wheatlev  !'.  Calhoun,  12  Leigh,  264 ; 
37  Am.  Dec.  654 ;  Blair  v.  Thompson,  11  Gratt.  441. 

35  W.  Va.  R.  S.  1879,  ch.  82,  ?  17. 

36  Bailey  v.  Duncan,  4  Mon.  2.56,  265,  266  ;  Duke  v.  Brandt,  51  Mo. 
221,225. 


§  256  DOWER.  372 

37  Hawley  i'.  James,  5  Paige,  31S,  453. 

38  Yeo  V.  Mercereau,  18  N.  J.  L.  387,  390  ;  Thompson,  1  Jones,  4:iO, 
431,  432. 

3a    Thompson,  1  Jones,  4:30,  431,  432. 

40  Pugh  V.  Bell,  2  Men.  125,  128.  See  1  Scribner  Dow.  p.  436  ;  Har- 
rison V.  Boyd,  3fi  Ala.  505 ;  Edmondson  v.  Montague,  14  Ala.  370,  379 ; 
Crabb  v.  Pratt,  15  Ala.  843  ;  Gillespie  v.  SomerviUe,  3  Stewt.  &  P.  447  ; 
Rogers  v.  Rawlings,  8  Port.  325  ;  Nicholl  v.  Todd,  70  111.  295,  297  ;  Tay- 
lor V.  Kearn,  68  111.  339  ;  Stow  v.  Steel,  45  111.  328  ;  Atkin  v.  Merrill,  39 
111.  62  ;  Wooley  v.  Magie,  26  111.  626  ;  Owen  v.  Bobbins,  19  111.  545  ; 
Barnes  v.  Gav,  7  Iowa,  26  ;  Lindsey  v.  Stevens,  5  Dana,  101 ;  Brewer 
V.  Van  Arsda"le,  6  Dana,  204  ;  Yeo  v.  Mercereau,  18  N.  J.  L.  387  ;  Prltts 
V.  Kichey,  29  Pa.  St.  71, 77. 

41  Nicholl  V.  Todd,  70  111.  295,  297  ;  Duke  v.  Brandt,  51  Mo.  221,  225. 

42  Tyson  t<.  Harrington,  6  Ired.  Eq.  329. 

43  McMahon  v.  Russell,  17  Fla.  698,  705;  Cox  v.  Garst,  105  III.  342, 
»46  ;  Glenn  v.  Clark,  e3  Md.  580,  607  ;  Denton  v.  Nanny,  8  Barb.  618. 
620 ;  Reed  v.  Morrison,  12  Serg.  &  R.  18,  20  ;  Eddy  v.  Boulton,  13  R.  I. 
105, 106  ;  2}0st,  §  260. 

44  Denton  v.  Nanny,  8  Barb.  618,  620  ;  post,  J  260. 

45  Cox  V.  Garst,  105  111.  342,  316  ;  post,  i  260. 

46  McMahon  v.  Russell,  17  Fla.  698,  703  ;  post,  U  258,  260. 

47  Cox  V.  Garst,  105  111.  342,  346 ;  post,  U  258,  260. 

48  Taylor  v.  Kearn,  68  111.  3.39,  341  ;  Rowton,  1  Hen.  &  M.  92  ;  Clai- 
borne V.  Henderson,  3  Hen.  <fe  M.  322,  382. 

49  Ransom,  17  Fed.  Rep.  331,  335. 

50  Herron  v.  Williamson,  Litt.  SeL  Cas.  250. 

51  Edmondson  r.  Montague,  14  Ala.  370,  379  ;  Pugh  v.  Bell,  2  Mon 
125,  128  ;  Tyson  v.  Harrington,  6  Ired.  Eq.  329. 

52  Taylor  v.  Kearn,  68  111.  339,  341  ;  sui>ra,  n.  48. 

53  Harrison  v.  Boyd.  36  Ala.  203,  .'^33  ;  Latham  v.  McLnin,  64  Ga.  320  ; 
Smith  V.  Addleiuan,  5  Blackf.  406  ;  Barnes  v.  Gay,  7  Iowa,  26. 

54  Edmondson  v.  Montague,  14  Ala.  370,  379  ;  Pugh  v.  Bell,  2  Mon. 
125, 128. 

55  Brewer  r.  Van  Arsdale,  6  Dana,  204.  See  Grponhaum  %i.  Aus- 
trian, 70  111.  591,  594  ;  Malin  v.  Cunlt,  4  Ind.  535 ;  Barnes  r.  Gay, 7  Iowa, 
26;  Lindsey  r.  Stevens,  5  Dana,  liM  ;  3Iillcr  r.  .stump.  :t  Gill.  3(>1  ;  Lvnn 
V.  Gephart,  27  Md.  547;  Steuart  v.  Beard,  4  .Md.  Ch.  319;  Duke  v. 
Brandt,  51  Mo.  221,  228  ;  Hart  )•.  Logan,  49  Mo.  47  ;  Hawley  v.  .Tames,  5 
Paige,  318  ;  Church,  3  Sand.  Ch.  434  ;  Thompson.  1  Jones,  430 ;  Klutts, 
5  Jones  Eq.  80  ;  Smiley  v.  Wright,  2  Ohio,  607  ;  McDonald  v.  Aten,  1 
Ohio  St.  293  ;  Thompson  v.  Cochran,  7  Humph.  72. 

56  Consult  supra,  notes  38,  54. 

57  See  Claiborne  v.  Henderson,  3  Hen.  &  M.  322,  382  ;  sui>ra,  n.  55. 
53    See  Duke  v.  Brandt,  51  Mo.  221,  226  ;  svpra,  n.  55. 

59  Duke  v.  Brant,  51  Mo.  221,  226  ;  post,  I  259. 

60  Greenbaum  i'.  Austrian,  70  111.  591,  594 ;  Lindsey  71.  Stevens,  5 
Dana,  104  ;  Brewer  i:  Van  Arsdale,  6  Dana,  204 ;  Thompson,  1  Jones, 
430,  4;«. 

61  Bank  v.  Owens,  31  Md.  320,  326;  Thompson  v.  Cochran,  7 
Humph.  72. 


,373  DOWER.  ?  237 

62  Miller  t'.  Stump,  3  am,  304,  311.  B.  P.,  Ransom,  17  Fed.  Rep.  331, 
333,  334;  Owen  r.  Robbins,  19  111.  54-5;  Morse  v.  ThorsfU,  7S  111.  600, 
604;  Butler  v.  Holtznian,  .T.'i  Inrl.  lii  ;  Barnes  v.  Gay,  7  Iowa,  26; 
Gully  V.  Ray,  18  Mon.  B.  107,  113  ;  Heed  v.  Ford,  16  Mon.  B.  482  ; 
Hamilton  r.  Hughes,  fi  Marsh.  J.  J.  o.Sl ;  Lawson  i'.  Morton,  6  Dana, 
471  ;  Hamilton  v.  Hughes,  6  Marsh.  J.  J.  581 ;  Purdy,  3  Md.  C('.  547  ; 
Bowie  V.  Berry,  1  Md.  Ch.  4S2  ;  Lvnn  r.  Gephart,  27  Md.  M7,  -567,  56.S  ; 
Glenn  V.  Clark,  53  Md.  .580,  604  ;  Lobdell  v.  Hayes.  4  Allen,  187,  Ifllt; 
Duke  V.  Brandt,  51  Mo.  221,  225  ;  Hawlev  v.  James,  5  Paige,  318, 452, 453  ; 
Smiley  v.  Wright,  2  Ohio,  •5(J6;  Miller  r.  Wilson,  15  Ohio,  108;  Rands 
V.  Kendall,  15  Ohio,  671;  Abbott  v.  Bo.svvorth,  36  Ohio  8t.  605;  Pritts 
II.  Richev,  29  Pa.  St.  71  ;  Junk  v.  Canon,  34  Pa.  St.  286.  Except  by 
statute :  See  N.  C.  R.  S.  1873,  p.  839,  J  1-  - 

63  Glenn  v.  Clark,  53  Md.  580,  604. 

64  Taylor  v.  Kearn,  68  111.  339,  .341 ;  Miller  v.  Stump,  3  Gill,  301,  311. 

65  Post,  i -258. 

66  Lynn  v.  Gephart,  27  Md.  547,  5G8. 

67  Bowie  v.  Berry,  3  Md.  Ch.  350. 

6S  McMahon  v.  Russell,  17  Fla.  698,  703  ;  Bank  r.  Owings,  31  Md. 
320,  325  ;  Titus  v.  Neilson,  5  Johns.  Ch.  452. 

69  Owen  v.  Robbins,  19  111.  549, 5.54  ;  Wheatley  v.  Calhoun,  12  Leigh, 
264  ;  37  Am.  Dec.  6.>4. 

70  Morse  v.  Thorsell,  78  III.  600;  Gullv  v.  Ray,  18  Mon.  B.  107; 
Heed  v.  Ford,  16  Mon.  B.  114. 

I  257.  Dower  on  partnership  estates.  —  Whether  and 
\inder  what  circumstance-s  dower  exists  in  partnership 
estates  has  been  a  vexed  question  ;  i  for,  not  only  is  it 
far  from  settled  whether  and  when  partnership  realty 
is  to  be  considered  personalty, ^  but  even  granting  it  to 
be  realty,  there  remain  to  be  settled  the  priorities  as 
between  the  widow,  the  partner.ship  creditors,  and  the 
partners  themselves.^  Apart  from  the  widow,  the  rule 
seems  to  be  :  That  real  estate  purchased  with  partner- 
ship funds  or  for  partner.ship  purposes,  is  in  equity 
chargeable  with  the  debts  of  the  partnership,  and  with 
any  balance  due  one  partner  on  the  winding  up  of  the 
business  ;  and  that  the  surplus,  if  any,  is  to  be  consid- 
ered and  treated  as  real  e.state.*  This  surplus  alone  is 
liable  to  the  creditors  of  the  individual  partners.*  And 
the  real  interest  of  each  partner  in  the  real  estate  is  his 
share  of  this. surplus  ^  on  an  account  taken  as  of  the  date 
of  the  dissolution  of  the  partnership.^  The  A\idow  holds 
under  her  husband,^  and  should  have  dower  only  out 

H,  £  W.  — 32. 


§  257  DOWEK.  374 

of  his  interest ;  3  so  that,  although  there  are  eases  which 
hold  on  the  one  hand  that  partnership  property  is  per- 
sonalty, and  there  is  no  dower  therein  at  all, 'o  and  on  the 
other  that  realty  is  realty  though  oAvn  ed  by  partners,  and 
therefore  fully  subject  to  dower,"  the  true  rule  is,  that 
realty  bought  with  partnership  funds  or  for  partnership 
purposes  is  realty  at  law  subject  to  dower  as  if  held  in 
common, ^'^  unless  the  partners  have  by  express  agree- 
ment declared  it  to  he  personalty  ;  i^  but  that  it  is  subject 
in  equity  to  a  trust  ^*  in  favor  of  the  partnership  creditors 
and  of  any  of  the  partners  with  a  balance  due  him,'^ 
there  being  no  dower  in  case  the  property  is  needed  to 
pay  partnership  creditors,'*'  or  a  balance  due  the  other 
partners,"  but  there  being  dower  in  the  property,  if  it 
is  not  needed  for  such  purpose,'^  or  in  the  surplus  if  it 
is  only  needed  in  part ; ''  provided,  however,  that  if  the 
property  is  sold  under  the  partnership  lien  during  cov- 
erture dower  is  defeatedj^"  and  that  the  wife  does  not 
have  to  join  i^i  a.deed  thereof  for  partnership  purposes,^' 
or  have  to  l>e  made  a  party  when  a  partnership  mort- 
gage thereupon  is  foreclosed.22  if  there  is  an  express 
agreement  that  the  realty  of  the  partnership  shall  be 
used  for  paying  the  debts  of  the  firm,  there  is  no  doubt 
but  that  the  property  is  subject  to  the  trust  above 
described ;  ^  and  it  is  well  settled  that  such  an  agree- 
ment is  always  injplied  ;  ^*  so  that  the  property  vests  in 
the  partners  subject  to  an  equitable  lien,  which  is  there- 
fore prior  to  the  dower  of  their  wives.'^  If  the  lands  are 
sold  under  the  partnership  lien,  the  widow  has  no  dower 
in  rents  and  profits  aborning  before  the  sale.^^  The 
realty  must  of  course  be  partnership  property,  or  it  will 
be  subject  to  dower  as  any  other  realty  ;  ^  if  bouglit  by 
the  partners  it  is  prima  fo/cie  partnership  property ;  ^ 
and  it  is  such  property  if  bought  "vvith  partnership 
funds,'^  or  for  the  ^ise  of  the  firm ;  ^  but  it  is  not,  if 


375  DOWER.  g  257 

bought  for  and  charged  to  one  partner,^'  or  if  taken  in 
common  by  express  agreement.^^ 

1  See  1  Scribner  Dow.  563,  el  seq. 

2  Hale  v.  Plummer,  6  Intl.  121,  123,  124 ;  Galbraith  v.  Gedge,  16 
Mon.  B.  631,  634  ;  Buniside  i'.  Merrick,  4  Met.  537,  541. 

3  Greene,  1  Ohio,  244,  251  ;  13  Am.  Dec.  642. 

4  Huston  V.  Neil,  41  Ind.  504,  509 ;  Buchan  v.  Sumner,  2  Barb.  Ch. 
165,  200,  201. 

5  Greene,  1  Ohio,  244,  251  ;  13  Am.  Deo.  642. 

6  Matlock,  5  Ind.  40!,  407  ;  Bopp  v.  Fox,  63  III.  510,  544. 

7  Goortburn  v.  Stevens,  5  Gill,  1,  28 ;  1  Md.  Ch.  420,  439  ;  Dyer  v. 
Clark,  5  Met.  662,  575  ;  3J  Am.  Dec.  6J7. 

8  Dyer  v.  Clark,  5  Met.  562,  .576  ;  39  Am.  Dec.  697  ;  post,  ?  264. 

9  Priest,  5  Met.  582,  585  ;  Sumner  v.  Hampson,  8  Ohio,  328,  364 ;  32 
Am.  Dec.  722  ;  po«<,  i  258. 

10  Pierce  v.  Trigg,  10  Leigh,  405 ;  Wheatley  v.  Calhoun,  12  Leigh, 
284,  273  ;  37  Am.  Dec.  654. 

U  Smith  ?'.  Jackson,  2  Edw.  Ch.  28, 35.  See  Bell  ?'.  Phyn,  7  Ves.  Jr. 
25i ;  Woolidge  v.  Wilkins,  3  How.  (Miss.;  3fiO  ;  Markham  v.  Marrett,  7 
How.  (Miss.;  437. 

12  Loubat  V.  Nourse,  5  Fla.  350,  357;  Matlock,  5  Ind.  403,  406  ;  Gal- 
braith V.  Gedge,  16  Mon.  B.  631,  6;«  ;  Dyer  v.  Clark,  5  Met.  562,  677; 
39  Am.  Dec.  697  ;  Howard  c.  Priest,  5  Met.  5S2,  5S5 ;  Burnside  i\  Mer- 
rick, 4  Met.  637,  541  ;  Willet  v.  Brown,  65  Mo.  i;{8, 145  ;  33  Am.  Rep.  265  : 
Campbell,  30  N.  J.  Eq.  415,  417  ;  Greene,  1  Ohio,  244,  249.  250  ;  13  Am. 
Dec.  642. 

13  Galbraith  v.  Gedge,  16  Men.  B.  631,  634-6:J6 ;  Goodburn  v.  Stev- 
ens, 5  Gill,  1,  27. 

14  Willet  V.  Brown,  65  MQ.  138,  147  ;  33  Am.  Rep.  265  ;  infra,  n.  15. 

15  Drewrv  v.  Montgomery,  28}Ark.  256, 2.59  ;  Loubat  v.  Nourse,  5  Fla. 
a50,  3.57  ;  Matlock,  5  Ind.  403,407  ;  Galbraith  v.  Gedge,  16  Mon.  B.  631, 
631 ;  Divine  v.  Mitchum,  4  Mon.  B.  488,  491  ;  41  Am.  Dec.  241  ;  Good- 
burn  V.  Stevens,  5  Gill,  1,  27  ;  Dyer  v.  Clark,  5  Met.  602,  677;  39  Am. 
Dec.  697;  Howard  ^\  Priest,  5  Met.  582,  585,  .586  ;  Burnside  v.  Merrick, 
4  Met.  .537,  -541  ;  WlUet  r.  Brown,  65  Mo.  138,  143  ;  33  Am.  Rep.  265; 
Campbell,  30  N.  J.  Eq.  415,  417. 

16  Simpson  v.  Leech,  86  111.  286,  287  ;  Bopp  v.  Fox,  63  111.  540,  544; 
Burnside  r.  Merrick,  4  Met.  537,  541  ;  Willet  i'.  Brown,  65  Mo.  ViS,  147  ; 
3.J  Am.  Rep.  265;  Sumner  j'.  Hampson,  8  Ohio,  328,  ;i64  ;  32  Am.  Dec.  722. 

17  Howard  v.  Priest,  5  Met.  582,  585,  586  ;  Mowry  v.  Bradley,  11  R.  I. 
370,  372. 

18  Hiscock  V.  Jaycox,  12  Bank.  Reg.  .507,  511 ;  Simp.son  v.  Leech,  86 
111.  286,  288;  Hale  v.  Plummer,  6  Ind.  121,  124  ;  Galbraith  v.  Gedge,  16 
Mon.  B.  631,  634  ;  Goodburn  v.  Stevens,5  Gill,  1,  27;  1  Md.  Ch.  420,  440, 
441  ;  Campbell,  30  N.  J.  Eq.  415,  417. 

19  Huston  ?'.  Neil,  41  Ind.  504,  .50^,  509  ;  Dyer  v.  Clark,  5  Met.  562, 579  ; 
.?9  Am.  Dec.  6i*7  ;  Goodburn  v.  Stevens,  3  Gill,  1,  27,  2s  ;  Uuhring,  20 
Mo.  174,  182  ;  Campbell,  30  N.  J.  Eq.  415,  417  ;  Mowry  v.  Bradley,  11 
R.  I.  370,  372. 

20  See  Folsom  v.  Rhodes,  22  Ohio  St.  43a,  436  ;  post,  U  268,  26L 

21  Simpson  v.  Leech,  86  111.  286, 238  ;  Huston  v.  Neil,  41  Ind.  504, 510  ; 
Duhring,  20  Mo.  174, 180  ;  Mowry  v.  Bradley,  H  R.  1. 370, 372. 


2  258  DOWEE.  376 

22  Huston  V.  Neil,  14  Ind.  504,  510  ;  cialbraith  v.  Gedge,  16  Moii.  B. 
631,  6a5. 

23  Greene,  1  Ohio,  244, 249,  250  ;  13  Am.  Dec.  &42 ;  Thornton  v.  Dixon, 

3  Bro.  C.  C.  199  ;  Park  Dow.  199 ;  1  Scribner  Dow.  5ftl. 

24  Loubat  V.  Nourse,  5  Fla.  350,  :557  ;  Howard  v.  Priest,  5  Met.  5S2, 
5S5 ;  Willet  V.  Brown,  65  Mo.  138,  145,  146  ;  33  Am.  Rep.  2(S  ;  Sumner  v. 
Hampson,  8  Ohio,  328,  :J64  ;  32  Am.  Dec.  722  ;  1  Scribner  Dow.  566. 

25  Greene,  I  Ohio,  244,  2.50  ;  13  Am.  Dec.  (H2  ;  cases  ^itpra,  notes  8,  9. 

26  Goodburn  v.  Stevens,  1  Md.  Ch.  420,  440,  441. 

2t    Wheatley  v.  Calhoyn,  12  Leigh;  264,  273  ;  37  Am.  Dec.  6.M. 

28  Loubat  v.  Nourse,  5  Fla.  350.  357  ;  Willet  v.  Brown,  65  Mo.  138, 147  ; 
33  Am.  Rep.  265. 

29  Drewrv  v.  Monigomery,  28  Ark.  256, 260 ;  Hiscock  v.  Jayco.x,  12 
Bank.  Reg.  507,  516. 

30  Bopp?'.  Fox,63I11.510,  &13. 

31  Smith,  5  Ves.  Jr.  189. 

32  Drewry  v.  Montgomery,  28  Ark.  256,  260.    See  supra,  n.  13. 

^  258,  Bower  and  othor  encumbrances  —  Frioritios. — 
Dower  is  iiu  eueuinbrance  or  lieu.'  It  is  inferior  to  all 
liens  attaching  prior  to  marriage  or  to  the  acquisition 
of  the  property  by  the  hu.sband,  and  to  all  other  liens 
attaching  with  the  legally  given  consent  of  the  wife ; 
but  superior  to  all  liens  attaching  during  coverture 
without  such  consent.  Thus,  dower  is  inferior  to  an 
antenuptial  mortgage ^br  judgment^  against  the  hus- 
band, or  a  mortgage  on  projjerty  when  purchased  by 
the  husband,^  or  a  mortgage  in  which  the  wife  joins  ;» 
so  when  property  is  bought  subject  to  a  trust,^  as  when 
the  vendor  has  an  equitable  lien  for  the  purchase 
money,'  or  Avhere  the  husband  before  marriage  has 
agreed  to  sell,*  or  when  the  property  is  bought  for  a 
partnership  and  is  subject  to  a  trust  for  partnership 
u.ses ; '  it  is  also  infex'ior  to  any  lien  or  charge,  legal  or 
equitable,  having  its  inception  in  the  contract  of  pur- 
chase,'" as  a  mortgage  for  the  purchase  money ;'!  so  it 
is  inferior  to  the  lien  for  taxes. '^  On  the  other  hand,  it 
is  superior  to  the  rights  of  the  husband's  heirs  and 
common  creditors, '*  and  to  all  judgments  obtained 
dgainst  him  during  coverture,"  or  against  his  admin- 


377  DOWER.  §  258 

istrators  after  his  death  ;  '^  to  the  rights  of  a  purchaser 
from  the  husband/^  and  to  all  leases  or  encumbrances 
placed  upon  the  proj^erty  by  the  husband  alone  ,  '^  so 
it  is  superior  to  mechanic's  liens. ^^  As  a  general  rule, 
if  the  property  is  sold  under  a  lien  superior  to  dower 
during  coverture,  the  realty  is  changed  into  personalty 
and  dower  is  gone ;  ^^  but  if  after  coverture,  dower  is 
awarded  from  the  surplus.^"  Any  sale  under  an  infe- 
rior lien  must  be  subject  to  dower.-'^  So  if  tlie  prior 
lien  is  satisfied  there  is  dower.^- 

1  Barnett  v.  Gaines,  8  Ala.  373,  374  ;  post,  ?  262. 

2  Heth  V.  Cocke,  1  Rand.  344,  346  ;  jMst,  U  260,  261. 

3  Jones  v.  Miller,  17  S.  C.  380,  3S2,  386. 

4  C'arll  V.  Butman,  7  Me.  1C2  ;  4  Kent,  50  ;  1  Scribner  Bow.  591  ; 
post,  'i  260. 

5  Mantz  v.  Buchanan,  1  Md.  Ch.  202,  204-;  j^ost,  ??  260,  261. 

6  Cowman  v.  Hill,  3  Uill  &  3.  398,  405. 

7  Hugunin  v.  Cochrane,  51  111.  302,  305 ;  2  Am.  Rep.  303  ;  post,  5  259. 

8  Adltins  v.  Holmes,  2  Cart.  197,  199  ;  ante,  §  252. 

9  Willet  V.  Brown,  65  Mo.  138,  148  ;  33  Am.  Rep.  265 ;  ante,  5  257. 

10  Price  v.  Hobbs,  47  Md.  353,  382  ;  ante,  I  252  ;  post,  I  250. 

11  Fontaine  v.  Boatmen's,  57  Mo.  552,  558  ;  post,  I  259. 

12  Trowbridge  v.  Sypher,  55  Iowa,  352,  35fl. 

13  Croker  V.  Fox,  1  Root,  227,  228;  Calder  v.  Bull,  2  Root,  50,  52; 
Tarploy  v.  Gannaway,  2  Cold.  246,  248. 

14  Sisk  V.  Smith,  6  111.  503,  508  ;  Benoit  v.  Beard,  4  Md.  Ch.  319,  321  ; 
Combs  i>.  Young,  4  Yerg.  218, 226  ;  26  Am.  Dec.  225  ;  Tarplav  x\  Ganna- 
way, 2  Cold.  246,  248,  249. 

15  Phinney  v.  Johnson,  15  S.  C.  158, 160. 

16  Stoughtbh  V.  Leigh,  1  Taunt.  410;  Sisk  v.  Smith,  6  HI.  .503,  .507; 
Gerry  v.  Stinson,  60  Me.  186,  191 ;  Combs  v.  Young,  4  Verg.  218,  226  ;  26 
Am.  Dec.  225. 

.  17  Benson  v.  Scot,  3  Lev.  385,  386  ;  Davis  ?'.  McDonald,  42  Ga.  205, 
209;  Mowbrv,  64  111.  3S3 ;  Taylor,  55  111.  2.i2  ;  Sutherland,  fii  111.  4S1 ; 
Miller  V.  Steffer,  32  Midi.  104  ;  Grady  v.  McCorkle,  57  Mo.  172  ;  17  Am. 
Rep.  676 ;  post,  i  268. 

18  Bishopii.  Boyle,9Ind.  169, 171.  S.  P.,Gove  v.  Cather,  23  III.  634  ; 
Mark  v.  Murphy,  76  Ind.  534  ;  Van  Vronder  v.  Eastman,  7  Met.  157". 

19  See  Irvine  v.  Armistead,  46  Ala.  363;  Kintner  ?>.  McRae,  2  Cart. 
453  ;  Dean  v.  Phillips,  17  Ind.  406,  409  ;  Robbins,  8  BUickf.  174  ;  Brown 
I'.  Williams,  31  Me.  403;  Queen  r.  Pratt,  in  Md.  5;  Bislund  r.  Ilcwett, 
11  Sraedes  &  M.  164  ;  Bell  r.  Mavor,  Hi  I'aiijc,  4'.t,  .v.  ;  Suridfonl  r.  Mc- 
Lean, 3  Paige,  117-  23  Am.  Deo.  773  ;  Titus  i:  Xcilsun,  5  .Idlms.  Cli.  45?, 
457  ;  Folsom  v.  Rhodes,  22  Ohio  St.  4;i.5,  436  ;  Directors  k.  Roger,  43  Pa. 
St.  181 ;  Rose,  6  Heisk.  533  ;  Wilson  v.  Davisson.  2  Rob.  (Va.)  398  ;  post, 
i  261. 


g  259  DOWER.  378 

20  King,  100  Mass.  224,  226  ;  Smith  v.  Jackson,  2  Edw.  28,  35.  See 
Green  v.  Causey.  10  Ga.  43.5  ;  Simons  ik  Latimer,  37  Ga.  490  ;  Robbins, 
8  Blaclif.  174 ;  Sandford  v.  McLean,  3  Paige,  117  ;  23  Am.  Dec.  773  ;  post, 
?  161  ;  ante,  \  257. 

21  Davis  V.  McDonald,  42  Ga,  205,  207. 

22  Mayo  v.  Hamlin,  73  Me.  182, 185  ;  past,  \  261. 

\  259.  Dower  and  purchase  money.  —  As  a  general  rule, 
every  kind  of  lien  for  the  purchase  money  of  land  is 
superior  to  the  purchaser's  wife's  right  of  dower.  If  the 
vendor  retains  h's  legal  title  to  the  land  as  security,  this 
is  sujjerior  to  dower  ;'  so  is  his  equitable  lien  superior, 
in  States  where  a  vendor's  equitable  lien  is  recognized,^ 
though  he  has  parted  with  his  legal  title  ;^  provided, 
however,  that  if  he  has  taken  otiier  security,  his  ven- 
dor's lien  is,  in  tlie  absence  of  express  agreement, 
gone,''  so  tliat  even  if  he  obtains  judgment  against  the 
purchaser  for  the  purchase  money,  he  thereby  loses 
his  equitable  lien,^  and  the  judgment  is  subsequent  to 
dower.''  It  is  very  common  for  the  liurchaser  to  take  a 
mortgage  for  the  purchase  monej^,  and  it  is  almost  uni- 
versally admitted  that  such  a  mortgage  is  laaramount 
to  dower  witliout  the  joinder  of  the  wife  therein,'  the 
husband's  seisin  beings  instantaneous.^  The  mortgage 
and  the  deed  may  of  course  be  different  papers;^  and 
they  need  not  be  between  the  same  parties,'"  for  a  third 
party  Avho  has  lent  the  purchase  money  and  taken  a 
mortgage  tlierefor  has  the  same  rights  as  the  vendor 
would  have  liad, "  as  when  A,  B,  and  C  meet  together, 
and  A  deeds  to  B,  and  B  mortgages  to  C,  who  has  lent 
him  tlie  money  to  make  the  purchase  with.'^  Nor  need 
the  deed  and  mortgage  be  of  the  same  date,'^  or  deliv- 
ered'* or  recorded  '^  at  the  same  time  :  the  point  is  that 
they  must  be  a  part  of  one  and  tlie  same  transaction.** 
The  burden  of  proof  to  show  this  is  on  the  defendant 
(the  vendor) ; "  he  may  show  it  by  oral  evidence.'^ 
If  the  two  papers  were  recorded  at  the  same  time,  they 


379  do\vp:r.  §  269 

are  presumed  to  have  been  one  transaction,^^  though 
the  mortgage  bo  to  a  third  partj- ;  '■'*'  and  if  they  are  be- 
tween the  same  parties,  of  the  same  date,  acknowledged 
before  the  same  officer,  they  are  presumed  the  sam.e 
transaction,^'  tliougli  I'ecorded  at  different  times.'^  A 
delay  of  ten  montlis  before  the  execution  of  tlie  morl.- 
gage  was  held  not  to  affect  the  mortgagee's  rights  when 
it  had  been  a  part  of  the  original  contract  of  sale  that 
the  mortgage  should  be  given, ^  but  otherwise  such  de- 
lay would  have  been  fatal.'*  And  if  the  purchaser 
pays  off  the  original  mortgage  with  money  borrowed 
on  a  mortgage  on  the  same  i^roperty,  such  latter  mort- 
gage is  inferior  to  dower.'^^  These  rules  apply  though 
the  wife  is  an  infant,^  and  though  the  mortgage  is  in 
tlie  form  of  a  deed  of  trust.^  Wliether  the  vendor 
reserves  his  lien  or  takes  a  mortgage,  very  nearly  tlie 
same  rights  result,  and  the  rules  applicable  to  mort- 
gages apply. '8  Thus,  the  wife  has  dower  against  all 
persons  except  the  mortgagor,  or  vendor,  or  assigns ;  '^ 
she  may  have  dower  till  the  claim  of  such  parties  is 
asserted; 30  if  the  lien  is  discharged  by  payment,  she 
has  dower  in  the  land  ;  3'  after  her  husband's  death  she 
maj'^  call  on  his  personal  representatives  to  satisfy  the 
lien,3^  or  liave  the  other  real.y  exhausted  for  this  pur- 
pose ;33  if  the  lien  is  enforced  during  her  husband's  life 
her  dower  is  gone; 3*  if  after  his  death,  she  has  dower 
in  the  surplus  ;^^  in  any  case  the  purchaser  takes  the 
land  free  of  dower ,3^  if  she  has  been  made  a  party  to 
the  proceeding.3^  The  vendor's  lien  is  on  the  land,  not 
on  the  rents  and  profits.^^  -piie  husband  may  reconvey 
the  land  to  the  vendor  in  satisfaction  of  the  lien,^*  jiro- 
vided  that  this  is  not  done  to  defeat  the  wife's  rights.^o 
There  are  statutes  declaratory  of  this  law  ;*i  others  en- 
able the  husband  to  sell  the  land  clear  of  the  wife's 
riglits  to  pay  off  the  vendor's  lien ;  *-  others  make  a 
mortgage  for  the  purchase  money  inferior  to  dower.*^ 


g  259  DOWER.  3S0 

1  Milleri'.  Stump.SGill,  "04, 311  ;  nnie,  ?256.  See  Thorn  r.  Ingram, 
25  Ark.  52 ;  Birnie  v.  Main,  29  Ark.  Sill  ;  Clements  v.  Bostwlck, :«  Ga. 
1  ;  Day  v.  Solomon,  40  Ga.  32  ;  Malin  v.  Coult,  4  Iiul.  .'j;i5  ;  Crane  v. 
Palmer,  8  Blackf.  120;  Thomas  v.  Hanson,  44  Iowa,  651  ;  Barnes  v. 
Gay,  7  Iowa,  26  ;  Naz.  Lit.  v.  Lowe,  1  Mon.  B.  257  ;  Willett  v.  Beatty, 
12  Mon.  B.  172  ;  McClure  v.  Harris,  12  Mon.  B.  2(U  ;  Glenn  r.  Clark,  53 
Mfl.  5S0;  Walton  v.  Hargroves,  42  Miss.  18;  Cocke  v.  Baily,  42  Miss. 
81  ;  Warner  v.  Van  Aistyne,  3  Paisro,  513  ;  Klrhy  v.  Daltoii,  1  Dev.  Ch. 
15  ;  Firestone,  2  Ohio  St.  415  ;  Pritts  )•.  Hitchey,  2!)  Pa.  St.  71  ;  Boyd  v. 
Martin,  9  Hei.sk.  382  ;  Wilson  v.  Davis.son,  2  Bob.  (Va.j  384. 

2  It  is  adopted  in  Alabama,  Arkansas,  California  Florida,  Georgia' 
Illinois,  Indiana,  Iowa,  Kentucky,  Maryland,  Michigan,  Mississippi' 
Missouri,  N  -w  York,  Oliio,  Tennessee,  Texas,  and  Virginia.  It  is 
rejected  in  Maine,  North  Carolina,  Pennsylvania,  and  \'erniont.  Its 
e.xistence  is  doubtful  in  Cunnecticnt,  Dclaw.'ire,  and  ISIassachusetts : 
Hare  &  W.  notes,  1  Lead.  Cas.  in  Eq.  4S1 ;  1  Wash.  Real  Prop.  508,  n  ; 
1  Scribner  Dow.  -555,  n.  2. 

.S  Brooks  ?'.  Woods,  40  Ala.  538,  541.  See  Thorn  v.  Ingram,  25  Ark. 
52 ;  Meigs  v.  Dniiock,  6  Conn.  458  ;  .Slaughter  v.  Culpepper,  44  Ga.  31!i ; 
Fletcher  »>.  Holmes,  32  Ind.  447 ;  Carver  v.  Grove,  68  Ind.  371 ;  Talbott 
V.  Armstrong,  14  Ind.  2.54  ;  Noyes  v.  Kramer,  54  Iowa,  22  ;  Thomas  v. 
Hanson,  44  Iowa,  651 ;  McClure  v.  Harris,  i2  Mon.  B.  261  ;  King  v. 
Aver,  .53  Me.  138  ;  Price  v.  Hobbs,  47 Md.  35) ;  Rawlings  v.  Lowndes,  34 
Md.  6.3');  Smith  71.  McCarty,  113  Mass.  5Ki;  Bisland  r.  Hewett,  11 
Smedes  &  M.  164  ;  Cocke  v.  Bailey,  42  Miss.  81  ;  Duke  r.  Brandt,  51 
Mo.  221 ;  Warner  v.  Van  Alstyin>,  3  Paige,  513;  Brackett  1'.  Bauni,  .50 
N.  Y.  8;  Culber  v.  Harper,  27  Ohio  St.  464;  Fox  v.  Pratt,  27  Ohio  St. 
512  ;  Calmes  1'.  McCracl'ien,  8  S.  C.  87;  Williams  v.  Woods,  1  Humph. 
408 ;  Blair  v.  Thompson,  11  Gratt.  441 ;  George  v.  Cooper,  15  W.  Va.  660. 

4  McCltire  ■;>.  Harris,  12  Mon.  B.  261,  264;  Blair  i\  Thompson,  11 
Gratt.  446,  4.y2.  See  Meigs  v.  Dimock.  6  Conn.  458 ;  Clements  r.  Bost- 
wick,  .3S(;a.  1  ;  Hart  r.  I>ogan,  49  Mo.  47;  Hollis,  4  Baxt.  524  ;  Gregg  v. 
Jones,  5  Heisk.  443  ;  1  Lead.  Cas.  in  Eq.  262-281. 

5  McArthur  v.  Porter,  1  Ohio,  99, 101. 

6  Steuart  v.  Beard,  4  Md.  Ch.  319,  321 ;  ante,  i  258. 

7  Maybury  v.  Brien,  15  Peters,  21,  X>,  ;  ante,  ?  2.52.  S.  P^,  Eslava  v. 
Lepretre,  21  Ala.  ,504,  528  ;  56  Am.  Dec.  266  ;  Baker  v.  McCuiie,  82  Ind. 
339,  .^1 ;  Thomas  r.  Hanson,  44  Iowa,  651,  652  ;  (Jrant  v.  Dodge,  43  Me. 
489, 490 ;  Gage  v.  Ward,  25  Me.  101,  i:iO ;  Gammon  v.  Freeman,  31  Me.  240, 
245;  Glenn >.  Clark,  53  Md.  .580,604;  Heuisler  v.  Nickum,  38  Md.  270, 
277;  Rawlings  1).  Lowndes,  34  Md.  639,642;  Smith  v.  McCartney,  119 
Mass.  519,  .520;  King  v.  Stetson,  11  Allen,  407,  408  :  Pendleton  v.  Pom- 
erov.  4  Allen,  501,  511  ;  Fontaine  v.  Boatmen's,  57  Mo.  .552,  .558, 559  ;  Bul- 
lard  V.  Bowers,  10  N.  H.  500,  502  ;  Griggs  v.  Smith,  12  N.  J.  L.  22,  23; 
Kittle  V.  Van  Dyck,  1  Sand.  Ch.  76.  81  ;  Stow  v.  Tifift.  15  Johns.  459, 462, 
463;  8  Am.  Deo.  266;  Gowan  v.  Smith,  44  Barb.  2.32.  239;  Welsh  v. 
Buckins,  9  Ohio  St.  331,  :{33;  Gilliam  v.  Moore,  4  Leigh,  30,  .32  ;  24  Am. 
Dec.  704  ;  Wheatlev  v.  Calhoun,  12  Leigh,  264,  274  ;  37  Am.  Dec.  6.54  ; 
George  v.  Cooper,  15  W.  Va.  666,  672  ;  Jones  v.  Parker,  51  Wis.  218;  223. 
Contra,  Slaugliter  v.  Culpepper,  44  Ga.  319,  .320;  McClure  v.  Hams,  12 
Mon.  B.  261,  20G ;  Reed  v.  Morrison,  12  Serg.  &  R.  18,  21. 

8  Rawlings  )•.  Lowndes,  34  Md.  639,  643  ;  ante,  ?  2.52. 

9  Stow  V.  Tlfft,  15  Johns.  459,  462,  463  ;  8  Am.  Dec.  266. 

10  Gammon  v.  Freeman,  31  Me.  243,  245. 

11  Bov!iton  V.  Sawyer,  35  Ala.  499, 500  ;  Thomas  v.  Hanson,  44  Ipwa, 
651,  652 ;  Moore  v.  lloiliiis,  45  Me.  403,  494 ;  Glenn  v.  Clark,  53  Md.  580, 


331  DOWER.  §  259 

604  ;  MeCauley  v.  Grimes,  2  Gill  &  J.  318,  SHi ;  20  Am.  Dec.  4^  ;  King 
V.  Stcnsoii,  II  Allen,  407,  408;  McGowan  v.  Smith,  44  Barb.  2;!2,  2:!7  ; 
Welsh  V.  Buckius, !)  Ohio  St.  33J,  3;;:! ;  Jones  v.  Parker,  51  Wis.  2:8,  22.i. 

12  Jones  r.  Parker,  51  Wis.  218,  223.  Compare  Spencer  v.  Loe,  13 
W.  Va.  179,  193. 

13  Gammon  ?».  Freeman,  21  Me.  101,  I0> ;  Riivvlings  v.  Lowndes,  C4 
Me.  (CW,  642. 

14  Fontaine  v.  Boatmen's,  57  Mo.  552,  5.58. 

15  McGowan  v.  Smith,  41  Barb.  232, 2:!8  ;  Wheatloy  v.  Calhoun,  12 
Leigh,  264,  274  ;  37  Am.  Dec.  654. 

16  Gage  )■.  Ward,  25  Me.  101.  103  ;  RawiiiiETS  r.  Lowndes,  34  Md.  630, 
643 ;  Smith  >'.  MeCartnev,  IIH  Mass.  51!i,  ."iJu  ;  Kius  r.  Stetson,  H  Allen, 
407, 408  ;  Fontaine  r.  Boatmen's,  .57  Mo.  .5.')2,  .Vi.i ;  Stow  >'.  Tilft,  ISJohns. 
45!l,  463;  8  Am.  Deo.  266  ;  Wheatlev  r.  Calhoun,  12  Leigh,  264,  274  ; 
37  Am.  Dec.  6.54  ;  Gilliam  !'.  Moore,  4  Leigh,  30,  32  ;  24  Am.  Dec.  704. 

17  Grant  v.  Dodge,  43  Me.  480,  400;  Fontaine  v.  Boatmen's,  57  Mo. 
552,  558. 

IS    Fontaine  v.  Boatmen's,  57  Mo.  552,  5.50. 

19  Pendleton  v.  Pomeroy,  4  Allen,  510,  511. 

20  Moore  ?■.  Rollins,  45  M".  403.  404  ;  Glenn  v.  Clark,  53  Md.  5S0,  605, 
606;  Cunningham  r.  Knight,  1  Barb.  3^9. 

21  Moore  v.  Rollins,  45  Me.  403,  404,  495. 

22  McGowan  v.  Smith,  44  Barb.  232,  239. 

23  Wheatlev  v.  Calhoun,  12  Leigh,  264,  274  ;  37  Am.  Dec.  654.  See 
Kittle  V.  Van  Dyck,  1  Sand.  Ch.  76,  81. 

24  Rawlings  v.  Lowndes,  34  Md.  639,  642. 

25  Gage  v.  Ward,  25  Me.  101,  103;  Westfall  v.  Hintze,  7  Abb.  N.  C. 
236 ;  Calmes  v.  McCracken,  8  S.  C.  87,  99. 

^  26    Glenn  v.  Clark,  53  Md.  580,  604. 

27  George  v.  Cooper,  15  W.  Va.  666,  672. 

28  See  post,  U  260.  261. 

29  Bovnton  v.  Sawyer,  .35  Ala.  497,  500  ;  Rawlings  r.  Lowndes,  34 
Md.  639,  642 ;  Whitehead  y.  Middleton,  2  How.  (.Miss.)  692,  61)6. 

30  Thompson,  1  Jones,  430.  See  Tucker  r.  Field,  51  Miss.  19  ;  Pickett 
V.  Buckner,  45  Miss.  226;  Tarplev  c.  GmVnaway,  2  Cold.  245;  .laines  v. 
Fields,  5  Heisk.  394  ;  Perkins  v.  McDonald,  3  Ba.xt.  :543. 

31  BuUard  !'.  Bowers,  10  N.  H.  .500,  .502. 

32  Warner  v.  Van  Alstyne,  3  Paige,  51.3.    See  pout,  I  261. 

33  Caroon  r.  Cooper,  63  N.  C.  38b,  388.    Seepo**,  ?  261. 

34  Consult  cases  infra,  n.  35 ;  post,  I  261. 

35  Brooks  v.  Woods,  40  Ala.  5-38,  .541.  S.  P.,  Willett  t\  Beatty,  12 
Mon.  B.  172;  Warner  r.  Van  Alstyne,  3  Paige,  513;  Thompson,  1 
Jones,  430  ;  Klutts,  5  Jones  Eq.  80  ;  Williams  c.  Woods,  1  Humph.  408. 

36  Barnes  v.  Gav,  7  Iowa,  26 ;  Naz.  Lit.  v.  Lowe,  1  Mon.  B.  2.57 ; 
Bisland  r.  Hewett,  It  Sniedes  &  M.  164  ;  Riddicle  v.  Walsh,  15Mo.5t9; 
Williams  v.  Woods,  1  Humph.  408;  Wilson  v.  Davisson,2  Rob.  Va.  .384. 

37  McArthur  r.  Porter,  1  Ohio,  SO,  lOl.  See  Willett  v.  Beattv,  12 
Mon.  B.  172 ;  Smith  v.  Gardner,  42  Barb.  357  ;  post,  I  261. 

38  Wilson  V.  Ewing,  79  Ky.  .549,  .550. 

.39    Hugunin  v.  Cochrane,  51  111.  :J02,  .305 ;  2  Am.  Rep.  .303  ;  ante,  J  2.56. 


§  260  DOWER.  382 

40  Hugunin  v.  Cochrane,  51  III.  302,  305 ;  2  Am.  Rep.  303  ;  post,  I  268. 

41  Baker  v.  McCune,  82  Ind.  339,  341  ;  ante.  §  247. 

42  Melone  v.  Armstrong,  79  Ky.  248, 249. 

43  Slaughter  v.  Culpepper,  44  Ga.  319,  320. 

I  260.  Dower  in  mortgaged  lands. — When  land  is 
mortgaged,  the  mortgagee  holds  the  mortgage  simply 
as  security  ; '  his  interest  is  a  chattel  interest  which  goes 
to  his  personal  representatives  on  his  death, ^  and 
though  he  has  the  legal  title  to  the  property,  at  all 
events  after  default,^  he  is  seized  simjily  as  tru.stee;* 
therefore,  since  there  is  no  dower  in  a  chattel  interest^  or 
a  bare  legal  title,^  it  has  always  been  admitted  tliat  the  . 
wife  of  a  mortgagee  has  no  dower  in  the  mortgaged 
lands,^  unless  he  has  perfected  his  title  thereto  by  fore- 
closure during  his  life.*  The  mortgagor  has,  on  the 
other  hand,  tlie  full  substantial  ownership  of  the  mort- 
gaged projierty  until  foreclosure,®  and  has  generally 
now  the  legal  title  reserved  until  default,!*'  which  gives 
him  an  estate  on  condition,  dower  in  which  may  be 
defeated  by  breach  of  the  condition  ; "  but  after  default, 
at  all  events,  he  has  only  an  equitable  estate, '^  tlie  right 
to  clear  off  the  encumbrance  by  payment,  called  the 
equity  of  redemption.'^  At  common  law  there  was  no 
dower  in  equitable  estates,'*  and  therefore  in  an  equity 
of  redemption;'^  so  that  tlie  wife  of  the  mortgagor 
could  no  more  have  dower  at  common  law  than  the 
wife  of  the  mortgagee  ;'^  still,  the  mortgagor's  wife  had 
dower  if  the  mortgage  were  for  years  only."  But  now 
either  by  an  express  statute  or  as  equitable  estates,'^ 
equities  of  redemption  are  subject  to  dower.'®  And 
this  rule  applies  to  all  cases  when  the  mortgage  is  para- 
mount to  dower  ;^  i.  e.,  whetlier  the  land  was  bought 
subject  to  the  mortgage, '''  or  the  mortgage  was  made 
by  the  husband  before  his  marriage,^  or  after  marriage 
jointly  with  his  wife,®  or  after  marriage  without  her 


3S:3  DOWER.  1 260 

joinder,  as  a  pari  ol  the  transaction  which  vested  the 
property  in  him.-'  In  these  cases  there  is  no  dower  in 
the  lands  but  only  in  the  equity  of  redemption. ^5  lu 
other  cases  wlien  the  mortgage  is  made  after  marriage 
without  the  wife's  joinder,  lier  dower  is  paramount 
thereto,  and  she  lias  dower  in  the  lands  as  if  tliere 
were  no  mortgage, ^^  except  where  she  has  dower  only 
of  the  lauds  of  which  the- husband  dies  seized.'^  She 
may  show  that  a  deed  absolute  on  its  face  Avas  in  fact 
only  a  mortgage.'^*  When  she  has  dower  in  an  equity 
of  redemption,  if  the  husband  dies  without  default,  she 
may  be  endowed  out  of  the  lands  and  hold  them  until 
default ;  ^  for  even  when  she  joins  in  the  mortgage  she 
releases  her  rights  only  as  to  the  mortgagee,^"  and  as 
to  him  only  to  the  extent  that  the  husband  releases 
his.3*  If  the  husband  dies  after  default  and  tlie  mort- 
gagee has  taken  possession,  the  widow  cannot  disturb 
him  or  have  dower,'^  unless  the  property  has  been 
redeemed  ^3  or  sold  under  the  mortgage,^* 

1  Crittenden  v.  Johnson,  6  Eng.  94,  104. 

2  Reid  !'.  Shiplej',  6  Vt.  602,  600  ;  Denton  v.  Nanny,  8  Barb.  618,  621. 

3  Stelle  V.  Carroll,  12  Peters,  201,  205  ;  Maybury  v.  Brien,  15  Peters, 
21,  38  ;  Piokett  v.  Buckner,  45  Miss.  2^3,- 244  ;  Bell  v.  Mayor,  10  Puiso, 
4J,  54. 

4  Dawson  v.  Whitehaven,  Law  R.  6Ch.  D.  218, 221 ;  Dixon  v.  Saville, 
1  Bro.  C.  C.  326. 

5  Spangler  v.  Stanlor,  1  Md.  Ch.  36,  .37  ;  ante,  I  254. 

6  Gully  V.  Ray,  18  Mon.  B.  107, 114  ;  ante,  U  252,  256. 

7  Foster  r.  Dwinel,  49  Me.  44,  53.  See  Nash  v.  Preston,  Ore.  Car. 
190 ;  Hinton,  2  Vcs.  Jr.  6J1 ;  Noel  v.  Jevon,  Freeni.  4:i,  71 ;  Ark.  Dig. 
1874,12216;  Crittenden  v.  Johnson,  6  Eng.  94,  104;  111.  H.  S.  ISSO,  p. 
42.5,  ?  6  ;  N.  Y.  B.  .S.  18S3.  p.  2l:)7,  ?  7  ;  Cooper  v.  Whitney,  3  Hill,  94, 
100  ;  R"id  V.  Shiplov,  6  Vt.  602,  609  ;  Waller,  33  Oratt.  8i,  8ij ;  1  Wash. 
Real  Prop.  p.  Hii,  H-J ;  1  Scribner  Dow.  477,478. 

8  Foster  v.  Dwinel,  49  Me.  44,  53. 

9  Titus  V.  Xfilson,  5  Johns.  Ch.  452,454  ;  Denton  v.  Nanny,  8  Barb. 
618,  621,  6J.i ;  Boll  V.  Mayor,  10  Paige,  49,  51,  6S. 

10  See  Bank  v.  Arnold,  5  Paige,  38,  41 ;  Danforth  v.  Smith,  23  Vt. 
247,  25J  ;  infra,  n.  23. 

11  Moore  v.  Esty,  5  N.  11.  479  ;  ante,  ?  254. 

12  Stelle  V.  Carroll,  12  Peters,  201,  205. 

13  Heth  V.  Cocke,  1  Rand.  344,  316. 


§260 


DOWER.  284 


14  Ransom,  17  Fed.  Rep.  331, 333 ;  ante,  ?  25G. 

15  Dixon  V.  Saville,  1  Bro.  C.  C.  326  ;  Dawson  v.  Whitohaven,  Law 
R.  6  Cli.  D.  218,  221;  Mavbury,  v.  Brien,  15  Peters,  21,  38;  Cox  v. 
(^arst,  105  III.  H-12,  :146 ;  Glenn  r.  Clark,  '>^  Mil.  5no,  607;  Mckett  v. 
Buckner,  45  Miss.  226,  2-l'i ;  Denton  v.  Naiinv,  8  Barb.  618,  620;  Reed 
V.  Morrison,  12  8erg.  &  K.  18,  20  ;  Eddy  v.  Moulton,  13  R.  I.  105,  106. 

16  See  Hopkinsou  v.  Dumas,  42  X.  H.  296. 

17  Palmes  x\  Danbv,  Prec.  Ch.  137  ;  .Swaine  r.  Perino,  5  Johns.  Ch. 
4Si,  4!)1  ;  Keth  v.  Cocke,  1  Rand.  344,  340  ;  Park  Dow.  140,  3.50,  351 ;  1 
Scribner  Dow.  476. 

18  M.aybury  v.  Brien,  15  Peters,  21,  38. 

'  19  3  and  4  Wm.  IV.  ch.  105,  i  2  ;  Dawson  v.  Whitehaven,  Law  R.  6 
Ch.  D.  213,  221 ;  Ala.  Code  1876,  ?  2232  ;  Fry  v.  Merchants,  15  Ala.  810  ; 
Eshiva  1!.  Lepretre,  21  Ala.  501  ;  66  Am.  Dec.  266  ;  Cheek  ?;.  Waldrum, 
25  Ala.  152  ;  Ark.  Dig.  1874,  g  2213  ;  Cockerill  v.  Armstrong,  31  Ark.  580 ; 
Fish,  I  Conn.  559  ;  Conn.  Laws  1877,  p.  2U  :  Cornog,  3  Del.  Ch.  407  ;  D.  C. 
R.  C.  1S57,  p.  185,  ?  41 ;  McMahon  v.  Russell,  17  Fla.  698 ;  Hart  v.  McCol- 
lum,  28  Ga.  47S ;  Rust  v.  Billingslea,  44  Ga.  146,  306  ;  Kinnebrew  r.  Mc- 
Wharter,  61  (Ja.  .33  ;  111.  R.  S.  18s0,  p.  425,  ?  3  ;  Fisk  v.  Smitli.  1  Gilm.  506  ; 
Bhiin  I'.  Harrison,  11  111.  38-1 ;  Gold  v.  Ryan,  14  111.  53  ;  Burson  r.  Dow, 
Go  111.  146  ;  Cox  r.  Garst,  105  111.  342, 347  ;  K  v.  R.  S.  1879,  p.  ,527  ;  McClure 
V.  Harris,  12  Men.  B.  2l'.l  ;  Willett  v.  Beat'ty,  12  Mon.  B.  172  ;  Tevis  v. 
Stojle,  4  Mon.  33!) ;  Brewer  v.  Van  Arsdale,  6  Dana,  204  ;  Harrow  v. 
Johnson,  3  Met.  (Ky.)  578  ;  Me.  R.  S.  Ii71,  p.  758,  J  12  ;  Nason  r.  Allen, 
6  Me.  243;  .Smith  v.  Eustis,  7  Me.  41  ;  Carll  v.  Butman,  7  Me.  102; 
Hobbs  V.  Harvey,  16  Me.  so ;  Campbell  v.  Knights,  24  Me.  332  ;  45  Am. 
Dec.  107  ;  Gage  xk  Ward,  24  Me.  101 ;  Gammon  v.  Freeman, 31  Me.  243  ; 
Littlefield  i).  Crock.r,  30  Me.  192;  Manning  ?>.  Laboree,  33  Ble.  343; 
Simonton  v.  Grav,  34  Me.  50;  Smith  v.  Stanley,  :ff  Me.  11 ;  Young  v. 
Tarbell,  37  Me.  5C7  ;  Grant  v.  Dodi,'e,  43  Me.  489  ;  Wilkins  v.  French,  20 
Me.  Ill ;  Moorer.  Rollins,  45 Me.  493  ;  Barbour,  46 Me.  9  ;  Wingt'.  Ayer, 
53  Me.  138 ;  Hatch  v.  Palmer,  58  Me.  271  ;  Mass.  R.  S.  1882,  p.  741,  f  5  ; 
8no\v  II.  Stevens,  15  Mass.  278  ;  Barker rr.  Parker,  17  Mass.  564;  Peabody 
V.  P.itten,  2  Pick.  517, 519  ;  Gibson  v.  Crehore,  5  Pick.  146  ;  3  Pick.  475  ; 
Walker  V.  Griswold^e  Pick.  416  ;  Eaton  %k  Simomls,  14  Pick.  98 ;  Jenni- 
son  V.  Hapgoo  1, 11  Pick.  315 ;  19  .\m.  Dec.  258  ;  Van  VrmikiT  v.  East- 
man, 7  Met.  157  ;  Messiter  v.  Wright,  16  Pick.  151  ;  Lnnd  i\  Woods,  U 
Met.5r.S;  Niles?'.  Nye,  13  Mot.  1:35;  Nc'Wton?'.  Cook,4t;rav,46  ;  Pynch- 
oi  V.  Lester,  6  Gray,  314  ;  King  100  Mass.  224  ;  Lamb  v.  Moiitague,  112 
Mass.  35i,  353  ;  Md.  R.  C.  1S78,  p.  .397  ;  Hopltins  v.  Fry,  2  Gill,  359  ;  Miller 
V.  8tump,3  (Jill,  304  ;  Chewti.  Farmers,  9  Gill,  361 ;  Mantz  ?>.  Buchanan, 
1  Md.  Ch.  2o:  ;  Bank  v.  Owens,  31  Md.  320  ;  Glenn  ?-.  Clark,  .53  Md.  .580  ; 
Snyder,  6  Jlich.  470  ;  Newton  v.  Sly,  15  Mich.  391 ;  Mo.  R.  S.  1879,  p.  263  ; 
Atkinson  t).  Stewart,  46  5Io.  510  ;  Atkinson  r.  Angeri,46Mo.  515  ;  Pink- 
hf.m  V.  Gear,  3  N.  H.  in  ! ;  Miore  r.  F.stv,  5  N.  H.  479;  Cass  v.  Martin, 
6N.  H.  25;  Robinsiiii  v.  L(avitt,7X.  II.  9S  ;  BuIIard  r.  Bowers,  10  N.  H. 
500 ;  Rossiter  v.  Cds^^it,  15  X.  H.  38  ;  Clmigh  v.  Klliott,  23  N.  H.  182  ; 
Adams  v.  Hill,  29  N.  II.  202  ;  Hastings  v.  Stevens,  29  N.  H.  564  ;  Woods i». 
Wallace,  30  N.  H.  ;i84  ;  Copp  v.  Horsey,  31  N.  H.  317  ;  Hinds  v.  Ballou, 
44  N.  H.  619;  Montgomery  v.  Brouere,  5  N.  J.  L.  805  ;  Woodhull  v. 
Reid,  16  N.  J.  L.  128;  Yeo  ?■.  JF^rcereau,  18  N.  J.  L.  .387  ;  Thompson  v. 
Boyd,  21  N.  J.  L.  58, 22  N.  J.  L.  543  ;  Hartshorne,  2  N.  J.  Eq.  349  ;  Hinch- 
man  v.  Stiles,  9  N.  J.  Eq.  361, 45}^  Furman  v.  Clark,  11  X.  J.  Eq.  135; 
Hays  V.  Whitall,  13  X.  J.  Eq.  211  ;  Vreeland  v.  Jacobus,  19  N.  J.  Eq. 
231 ;  Campbell,  30  X.  J.  Eq.  415;  X.  Y.  R.  S.  1882,  p.  2197  ;  Titus  >•.  Xei.- 
son,  5  Julius.  Ch. 4.")2, 4.") ;  Coatest;.  Cheever,  1  ('owcn.ino  ;  Jackson  ?'. 
Dewitt.  6  Cowc'i,  310;  Stow  v.  TiTt,  15  J(dins. -l^S ;  8  Am.  Dec.  266  ; 
Hitcht'ock  1'.  Harrington,  0J(dins.  2j0  ;  5  Am.  Dec.  229;  Van  Duvne)'. 
Thayre,  14  Wend.  233  ;  19  Wend.  1G2  ;   Wheeler  v.  Morris,  2  Bosw. 


335  DOWER.  g  260 

c:4  ;  Smith  t'.  Jackson,  2  Edw.  Ch.  2S  ;  Frost  v.  Peacock,  4  Edw.  C'h. 
6ri ;  Tubple,  1  Johns.  Ch.  AH;  Swaine  v.  Pcrine.  5  Johns.  Ch.  4iJ; 
Bell  I'  Mayor,  10  Puiire,  ■)  I ;  Ilawk-v  v.  James,  5  Pai'^-e,  318  ;  Dentoii 
1'  Nanny,  8  Barb.  613;  Vartie  >:  I'lidcrwood,  18  Barb.  5(;2  ;  Mills  v. 
Van  Voorhies,  23  Barb.  125  ;  20  X.  Y.  412  ;  Smith  v.  Gardner,  42  B  vrb. 
3'i7;  Matthews  v.  Uurvea,  45  Barb.  0.)  ;  Buss  v.  Boardman,  22  Hun, 
527;  Bracke't  v.  Baurh.  50  iST.  Y.  S ;  Elmdorf  r.  Lockwood,  57  N.  Y. 
322  ;  N.  C.  Rev.  lS7:i,  p.  839  ;  Thompson,!  Jones,  430  ;  Klutts,5  JonesEq. 
SO  ;  Campbell  v.  Murph v,  2  Jones  1  Oq.  357  ;  Creeoy  v.  Pearoe,  63  N.  C.  07  ; 
Ohio  R.  S.  1880,  HISS  ;  Rands  i'.  Kendall,  15  Ohio,  671 ;  Taylor  v.  Fow- 
ler, 18  Ohio,  567  ;  51  Am.  Dec.  4GJ  ;  Carter  r.  Goodin,  3  Ohio  St.  75; 
Davenport  v.  Sovil,  6  Ohio  St.  453  ;  Culber  v.  Harper,  27  Ohio  St.  4(!1 ; 
Forr  V.  Pratt,  27  Ohio  St.  512  ;  Ungcr  v.  Leiter,  32  Ohio  St.  210  ; 
Ketchnm  ».  Shaw,  28  Ohio  St.  503;  Folsom  r.  l£lioles,  22  Ohio  St. 
435 ;  Oreg.  G.  L.  1874  ;  p.  5S4  ;  Dubs,  7  C.is.  1  l:i  ;  Reed  v.  Morrison,  12 
Serg.  &  R.  18;  R.  I.  P.  S.  1852,  p.  6  7  ;  Jlath.'wson  r.  Smith,  1  R.  I. 
22;  Peckham  v.  Nowden,  8  R.  I.  KJO  ;  De  Wolf  v.  Murphy,  11  R.  I. 
360  ;  Henegan  v.  Harllee,  10  Rich.  Eq.  2s') ;  Keekley,2  Hill.  Ch.  (.S.  C; 
2.50;  Keith  v.  Trapior,  1  Bail.  Ch.  63;  Brown  v.  Duncan,  4  McCord, 
.346 ;  Tenn.  R.  S.  1871,  |  2339 ;  James  v.  Fields,  5  Heisk.  3'J4  ;  Boyer, 
1  Cold.  12;  Tarplev  v.  Gunnaway,  2  Cold.  245;  Turbeville  v.  Gibson, 
5  Heisk.  565 ;  Va."  Code  1873,  p.  8.53 ;  Heth  v.  Cocke,  1  Rand.  344  ; 
Wheiitlev  -!'.  Calhoun,  12  Leigh,  264;  .37  Am.  Dec.  654;  Daniel  v. 
Leiteh,  13  Gratt.  11)5  ;  Vt.  R.  S.  1S80,  i  2210  ;  Danforth  v.  Smith,  23  Vt. 
247  ;  Wis.  R.  S.  1878,  p.  62S  ;  ante,  ?  25a 

20  See  a?i<e,  ?  2.58. 

21  Carll  V.  Butman,  7  Me.  102.    See  Campbell,  30  N.  J.  Eq.  415. 

22  Heth  V.  Cocke,  1  Rand.  344,  346. 

23  Cox  V.  Garst,  105  III.  342,  .347.  S.  P.,  Mantz  v.  Buchanan,  1  Md. 
Ch.  202,  204  ;  Glemi  v.  Clark,  53  Md.  osO,  604 ;  Bank  v.  Owens,  31  Md. 
320,  328  ;  Denton  v.  Nanny,  8  Biirb.  618,  620  ;  State  i'.  Hinton,  21  Ohio 
St.  509,  515  ;  Mathewson  v.  Smith,  1  R.  I.  22,  27. 

24  House,  10  Paige,  158, 104.  S.  P.,  Smith  v.  Eustis,  7  Me.  41 ;  Ilol- 
brook  )'.  Fiunev,  4  Mass.  566;  3  Am.  Dec.  243;  Bell  v.  Mayor,  10 
Paige,  4),  54  ;  ante,  i  2.59. 

25  Opdyke  v.  Bartles,  11  N.  J.  Eq.  1.33, 134  ;  Heth  v.  Cocke,  1  Rand. 
aj4,  316. 

26  Davis  v.  McDonald.  42  Ga.  205.  207 ;  Gerry  v.  Stinson.  60  IMo. 
186,  191. 

27  S°e  Tern.  R.  S.  1873,?  2308;  ante,  ^247.  MoTtgnge  jn-o  t ant  j  nn 
alienation  :  Bell  v.  Mayor,  10  Paige,  49,  .5.5. 

28  Whitcomb  v.  Sutherland,  18  111.  57S,  .579;  Johnson  r.  Van  Vol- 
son,  43  Mich,  203,  214  ;  Turbeville  v.  Gibson,  5  Heisk.  565,  566. 

29  Bank  r.  Arnold,  5  Paige,  38,  41  ;  Danforth  v.  Smith,  23  Vt.  2^7, 
259.  S.  P.,  Cockerill  v.  Armstro.ig,  31  Ark.  .530  ;  Ready  v.  Hamm,  46 
Miss.  422  ;  Tucker  v.  Field,  51  Miss.  191 ;  Pickett  v.  Buckner,  45  Miss. 
226;  Culber  ?•.  Harper,  27  Ohio,  464;  Perkins  v.  McDonald,  3  Ba.\t. 
»43;  Tarpley  v.  Gunnaway,  2  Cold.  245  ;  James  v.  Fields,  5  Heisk.  394. 

.30  Young  If.  Tarbell,  37  Me.  .509,  515 ;  Pickett  v.  Buckner,  45  Miss. 
226,  246  ;  Bell  v.  Mayor,  10  Paige,  49,  65  ;  Mathewson  v.  Smith,  1  R.  I. 
22,  27. 

31  Bank  v.  Arnold,  5  Paige,  38, 41. 

32  Van  Duyne  v.  Thayre,  14  Wend.  2.33,  2.36. 

33  Bell  V.  JIayor,  10  Paige,  49,  54  ;  post,  i  261. 

34  Smith  v.  Jackson,  2  Edw.  23,  35 ;  post,  I  201. 

H.  &  W. -33. 


§  231  DOWER.  386 

5  2Q1.  Dower  in  mortgaged  estates  —  Redemption  and 
foreclosure.  —  When  the  mortgage  is  in  default  after  the 
husband's  death,  the  widow  may  call  on  his  personal 
representatives  to  redeem  out  of  the  assets  of  the 
estate  :^  this  it  is  the  executoi's'  or  administi-ators'  duty 
to  do, 2  but  in  some  States  only  if  the  estate  is  solvent  ;2 
and  the  widow  need  not  contribute ;  *  if  there  are  not 
sufficient  assets  to  pay  the  whole,  they  must  pay  what 
they  have  and  save  as  far  as  possible  the  widow's 
dower."  The  widow  has  herself  the  right  to  redeeni,^ 
but  she  must  i^ay  the  whole  debt,'  unless  the  mort- 
gagee agrees  to  accept  a  proportion  thereof  and  to  re- 
lease the  mortgage  only  as  to  her  dower  lands  ;  ^  if  she 
does  pay  the  whole  debt,  she  may  call  on  the  lius- 
band's  heirs,  or  other  parties  holding  under  him,  to 
contribute,*  though  this  seems  doubtful.^*'  If  tlie  par- 
ties holding  under  the  husband  redeem  after  his 
death,ii  the  widow  may  have  her  dower  only  by  con- 
tributing her  share  of  the  debt.^'  The  widow's  share 
for  contribution  is  the  interest  on  one  third  of  the  sum 
paid  for  redemption,  during  her  life,  or  the  equivalent 
thereof.^^  For,  though  there  is  a  rule  that  there  is  no 
dower  in  any  equitable  estate  of  which  the  husband 
does  not  die  seized,"  and  thoiigh  this  has  been  ap])lied 
to  equities  of  redemption,!^  generally  the  widow  does 
take  dower,  although  the  husband  has  aliened  the 
equity  of  redemption  ^^ — certainly  if  the  mortgage  was 
one  in  which  she  joined"  —  on  the  ground  that  the 
mortgage  is  merely  a  security  which  can  be  set  up  only 
by  the  mortgagee  or  his  assigns  ;*8  and  if  the  alienee 
has  redeemed  during  the  husband's  life,  he  cannot 
make  the  widow  contribute,'^  though  he  can  if  he  re- 
deem after  the  husband's  death,^  or  if  he  be  assignee 
of  the  Iiusband's  heir. 2'  If  the  mortgagee  buys  in  the 
equitj'  of  redemption  there  is  strictly  a  merger,^^  but 


M 


SS7  DOWER.  I  261 

practically  it  is  treated  as  a  redemption ;  ^^  so  if  the 
assignee  of  the  eqiiitj^  buys  in  the  nior;gage.'-'  If  the 
husbuud  or  anyone  for  him '^  pays  otf  the  mortgage, 
there  is  dower  as  if  no  mortgage  liad  existed.-'*  If  the 
mortgage  is  foreclosed  during  coverture,  the  realty  is 
changed  into  personalty  2'  under  alien  paramount  to 
dower,  and  dower  is  gone  ;  •®  but  some  courts  have  lield 
that  on  account  of  her  inchoate  right  the  wife  must  be 
a  party  to  the  foreclosure  suit,'-^  and  that  if  there  is  a 
surplus,  dower  therein  will  be  set  aside  and  kept  for 
her.^"  If  tlie  mortgage  is  foreclosed  after  tlie  husband's 
death,^'  or  the  fund  lias  not  been  distributed  at  that 
time,^^she  has  dower  in  the  surplus,**  which  represents 
the  value  of  the  equity  of  redemption,**  and  in  the 
surplus  only  ;*^  if  there  is  no  surplus,  dower  is  gone,*^ 
provided  that  she  has  been  duly  made  a  party  to  the 
suit.*' 

1  Mantz  I'.  Buchanan,  1  Mel.  C  h.  "02,  204.  See  Bovnton  t>.  S.iwver, 
35  Ala.  4!t7,  oCK) ;  Morgan  v.  .Saci^ett,  57  Ind.  580,  582  ;  Perry  v.  Barton, 
2.)  Ind.  274,  '277;  llun.sucker  r.  bniith,  49  Ind.  114,  118;  Harrow  r. 
Joliiison,3  Met.  (Ky.)  578,  581  ;  King,  100  Mass.  224,  225;  Kosslter  i'. 
Co.ssit,  15  N.  H.  3S,  42-44;  Holmes,  :i  Paige  Vh.  363;  Warner  v.  Van 
Alstyne.  3  Paige,  513  ;  Campbt'll  v.  Mnrphy,  2  Jones  Kq.  357 ;  Creecy 
1\  Pearce,  6;i  X.  C.  07  ;  M;Uii'>\vson  c.  Smith,  1  R.  I.  22,25;  Henegan  v. 
lla;llee,  10  Rich.  Eq.  28i  ;  Keckley,  2  Jlill  Ch.  250. 

2  Morgan  v.  Sackett,  57  Ind.  6.S0,  582 ;  Mathewson  v.  Smith,  1  R.  I. 
2J,  25  ;  siqjra,  n.  35. 

3  Rossiter  v.  Cossit,  15  N.  H.  38, 42.  See  AVhitehead  v.  Cumming.s, 
1  Cart.  5i ;  Uibsou  v.  Crehore  5  Pick.  146, 150;  Hastings  v.  Stevens,  21) 
>'.  H.  504,572. 

4  Rossiter  v.  Cossit,  15  N.  H.  38,  43  ;  sujyra,  n.  1. 

5  Hunsucker  v.  Smith,  49  N.  H.  114,  118  ;  Perry  v.  Barton,  25  Ind. 
274,276.    Consult  «»pra,  n.  35. 

G  Whitcomb  v.  Sutherland,  IS  111.  578,  579  ;  Lamb  v.  Montague,  112 
Mass.  352,  353;  Woods  r.  Wallace,  30  N.  H.  a'<4,  :«8  ;  Wheeler  r.  Mor- 
ns, 2  Bosw.  524,  53o  ;  Robinson  i'.  Shacklett,  2J  Gr;Ut.  'M,  107.  See 
Hitehins,  2  Vern.  403  ;  Fry  v.  Merchants,  15  AUi.  M(i  ;  JIcMahon  v. 
Russell,  17  Fla.  (i.t8  ;  Hanover  c.  Johnson,  3  Met.  (Kv.i.i7->;  (Jage  v. 
Ward,  25  Me.  101,  10!;  Peabody  v.  Patten,  2  Pick.  517,"  51!i ;  Snydvr,  6 
Mich.  470;  Furman  v.  Clark,  11  N.  J.  Eq.  135  ;  Cass  v.  ]\[artin,  ti  N.  II. 
25,  26  ;  Van  Duvne  v.  Thuvre,  14  Wend.  2:13  ;  19  Wend.  1G2  ;  Ketchnni 
V.  Shaw,  28  Ohio  St.  503  ;  Reed  v.  Morrison,  12  Serg.  &  R.  1^,  21  ;  Hen- 
egan )'.  Harllee,  10  Rich.  Eq.  285;  Heth  v.  Cocke,  1  Rand.  344,  348; 
Danforth  i'.  Smith,  23  Vt.  247. 

7  McCabe  v.  Bellows,  7  Gray,  14S,  149.  S.  P..  McMahon  r.  Russell. 
17  ria.  GJ8,  703;  Kiuuebrew  v.  McWharter,  61  Ga.  33,  ;i4  ;  McJIahan 


§  2G1  DOWER.  388 

r.  Kimball,  3  Blackf.  1,  12  ;  Watson  r.  Clendenin,  6  Blackf.  477,  478 : 
Ciage  V.  Ward,  25  Me.  101,  Wi;  Campbell  v.  Kliiglits,  U4  Me.  3a2,  XU  ; 
45  Am.  Dec.  107  ;  Wing  v.  Ayer,  .53  Me.  lo8  ;  Purtly ,  3  Md.  Ch.  547  ;  Gib- 
son r.  Crehore,  5  Pick.  145,  151  ;  i^lessiter  r.  Wright,  16  Pick.  151,  151 ; 
Sneed  v.  Wood,  II  Met.  5tiri,  570  ;  Brown  v.  Lapham,  3  Cush.  551,  554  ; 
Rossiter  v.  Cossit,  15  N.  H.  3S,  43;  Bell  v.  Mayor,  10  Paige,  4H,  71  ; 
Van  Duyne  r.  Thayre,  14  Wend.  2:3,  236  ;  111  Wend.  162  ;  Wheatley 
V.  C'llhoun,  12  Leigh,  264;  37  Am.  Den.  654;  Heth  v.  Cocke,  1  Rand. 
34-1.346. 

8    Gibson  v.  Crehore,  5  Pick.  145, 151. 

n  Pickett  V.  Buckner,  45  Miss.  226,  246.  See  1  .Scribner  Dow.  408, 
409;  McMahan  v.  Kimball,  3  Blackf.  1.  12;  Carll  v.  Butman,  7  Me. 
lOi;  Gage  v.  Ward,  25  Me.  101,  103;  Wilkins  v.  French,  20  Me.  Ill; 
(iibson  V.  Crehore,  5  Pick.  146,  152  ;  Woods  v.  Wallace.  30  X.  H.  384, 
3SS  ;  Swaine  v.  Periiie,  5  Johns.  Ch.  482  ;  Bell  v.  Mayor,  10  Paige,  4'X 

10  Consult  cases  cited  supra,  n.  9. 

11  Eaton  V.  Simonds,  14  Pick.  98,  107  ;  cases  infra,  n.  12. 

12  Swaine  v.  Perine,  5  Johns.  Ch.  482,  491.  S.  P.,  McMahon  v.  Rus- 
sell, 17  Fla.  6)8, 705  ;  Cox r.  Garst,  105  111.  342,347  ;  Watson  v.  Clendeniii, 
6  Blackf.  477;  Mantz  v.  Buchanan,  I  Md.  Ch.  202  ;  Bank  v.  Owens, 
31  Md.  320  ;  Carll  v.  Butman,  7  Me.  102  ;  Simonton  v.  Gray,  34  Me.  50  ; 
Moore  v.  Rollins,  45  Me.  493;  Barbour,  46  Me.  9;  Wilkins  v.  French, 
20  Me.  Ill ;  Hatch  v.  Palmer,  58  Me.  271 ;  King,  100  Mass.  224  ;  Ser- 
geant V.  Fuller.  105  Mass.  119  ;  Pynchon  v.  Lester,  6  Gray,  314  ;  Katon 
V.  Simonds,  14  Pick.  98,  104,  107, 108  ;  McCabe  v.  Bellows,  7  Gray,  148  ; 
Niles  V.  Nye,  13  Mot.  1^5  ;  Newton  v.  Cook,  4  Gray,  46;  Atkinson  v. 
Stewart,  46  Mo.  510  ;  Atkinson  ?>.  Angert,  46  Mo.  575:  Seveanv  i'.  Mal- 
lorv,  62  Mo.  485  ;  Hinds  v.  Ballou,  44  N.  H.  619  ,  Copp  v.  Hersey,  31 
N.  H.  317;  Woods  V.  Wallace,  30  N.  H.  .^Sl ;  Hastings  v.  Stevens,  29 
N.  H.  501 ;  Wheeler  v.  Morris,  2  Bosw.  524  ;  Bell  v.  INIayor,  10  Paige, 
49  ;  House,  10  Paige,  1-58  ;  Creecv  v.  Pearce,  6 »  N.  C.  07  ;  Fox  v.  Pratt, 
27  Ohio  St.  512  ;  Wheatley  v.  Calhoun,  12  Leigh,  204  ;  37  Am.  Dec.  654. 

13  Swaine  v.  Perine,  5  Johns.  Ch.  482,  493.  See  Greenbaum  v.  Aus- 
trian, 70  111.  591  ;  Bank  v.  Owens,  31  Md.  320  ;  Gibson  v.  Crehore,  5 
Pick.  146,  1.52;  Cass  v.  Martin,  6  N.  H.  2.5,  2r> ;  Rossiter  r.  Cossit,  15 
N.  H.  38,  43  ;  Clough  V.  Elliott,"23  N.  II.  182, 18^  ;  Woods  r.  Wallace, :  0 
N.  H.  384,  .388  ;  Hartshorne,  2  N.  J.  Eq.  349,  359  ;  Evartson  v.  Tappen, 
6  Johns.  Ch.  482,  4)3  ;  Bell  v.  Mayor,  10  Paige,  49, 71 ;  House,  10  Paige, 
158,  164  ;  Ross  V.  Boardman,  22  Hun,  527. 

14  Gully  V.  Ray,  18  Mon.  B.  107, 113  ;  ante,  §  256. 

15  Miller  v.  Stump,  3  Gill,  304,  311;  Glenn  v.  Clark,  53  Md.  .5.80,  fi04  ; 
Rands  v.  KendaU,  15  Ohio,  671,  676;  Pillow  v.  Thomas,  1  Baxt.  120. 

16  McMahon  v.  Russell,  17  Fla.  6;i8,  705;  Denton  v.  Nanny,  8  Barb. 
618,  621.  See  Smith  r.  Eustis,  7  Me.  41,  43;  .Manning  v.  Laboree,  33 
Me.  343;  Wilkins  v.  French,  20  Me.  Ill  ;  Young  v.  Tarbell,  37  Me. 
.509,  515  ;  Moore  v.  Rollins,  45  Me.  493,  495  ;  Eaton  v.  Simonds,  14  Pick. 
i;8, 104  ;  Bolton  v.  Ballard,  13  Mass.  227 ;  Wedge  v.  Moore,  6  Cush.  8  ; 
Draper  v.  Baker,  12  Cush.  288  ;  Henrv,  4  Cush.  2.57  ;  Whitehead  v. 
Middleton,2How.  (Miss.)  632;  Rossiter  v.  Cossit,  15  N.  H.  38;  Hast- 
l:;gst).  Stevens,  2  IN.  H.  .5(!4  ;  Bullard  )•.  Bowers,  10  N.  H.  500;;  Hinch- 
man  v.  Stiles,  9  N.  J.  Eq.  361,  362 ;  Titns  v.  Neil.son,  5  Johns.  C  h.  1.52, 
4.57;  Coates  v.  Cheever,  1  Cowen,  460,  478;  Coles,  15  Johns.  319; 
8Am.Dec.231  ;  Wlieeler  r.  Morris,  2  Bosw.  524,  .526  ;  Carter  i'.  Goodin, 
3  Ohio  St.  75  ;  Mathewson  f.  Smith,  1  R.  I.  22,  27. 

17  Bank  v.  Owens,  31  Md.  320,  32.5. 

18  Collins  V.  Torry,  7  Johns.  278,  282 ;  a  Am.  Dec.  273  ;  Hitchcock 
V.  Harrington,  6  Johns.  290,  2„5  ;  5  Am  Dec.  229  ;  ante,  I  260,  n.  30. 


3S9  DOWER.  §  281 

19  Eaton  V.  Simonds,  14  Pick.  9'^,  107, 108  ;  At:vlnRon  v.  Stewart  46 
Mo.  510,  514;  Ketehum  v.  Shaw,  i:s  Ohio  St.  oO.i,  506;  1  \\as;i.  lunil 
I'rop.  1H6,  J  il.  UliC  See  1  Scrihiicr  Dow.  5:i5  ;  Baihour,  4G  Me.  U  ;  New- 
ton V.  Cook,  4  Gray,  46  ;  Pyiioiiou  v.  Lester,  6  Gray,  314. 

20  Eaton  v.  Simoiuls,  14  Pick.  98,  107  ;  supra,  notes  11,  12. 

21  Cass  1'.  Martin,  G  N.  II.  25;  Swaine  v.  Ferine,  5  John.s.  Ch  4S2, 
491 ;  1  Scribner  l)oW.  532. 

22  Hitchcock  r.  Harrington,  6  Johns.  290,  294 ;  5  Am.  Dec.  229.  See 
Duval  II.  Kebiger,  1  C  inn.  App.  2(H ;  Denton  v.  Harris,  2  Mason,  531, 
5:!!l ;  Popkin  v.  lUunpstead,  8  Jlass.  491  ;  5  Am.  Dec.  113;  Tliompsoa 
V.  Boyd,  22  X.  J.  L.  5i ; :  21  N.  J.  L.  58  ;  Coates  r.  Cheever,  1  Cowen, 
463, 479 ;  Collins  v.  Torry,  7  Johns.  278  ;  5  Am.  Dec.  273. 

23  12  Law  Rep.  16-5,  167  ;  Campbell  v.  Knights,  24  Me.  332  ;  45  Am. 
Dec.  107  ;  Van  Vronker  i'.  Eastman,  7  Met.  l.>7  ;  Snj'der,  6  Mich.  470; 
Woods  ti.  Wallace.  ;{0  N  11.  :K1,  ;iS7  ;  James  p.  Morev,2  Cowen,  246. 
285,  303  ;  14  Am.  Dec.  475 ;  Van  Duyne  v  Thayre,  19  Wend.  162, 171. 

24  Brown  v.  Lapham,  3  Cush.  531,  557  ;  Woods  v.  Wallace,  .30  N.  H. 
384,387;  HartshorneL2  X.J  Eq.  :;4),  35J.  Kegarded  as  assignee  of 
mortgage  :  Carll  v.  Butman,  7  Me  102  ;  McCable  v.  Swap,  14  Allen, 
18a,  193  ;  Gibson  v.  Crehore,  5  Pick.  140  ;  ICussell  v.  Austin,  1 1'uige,  192. 

25  Carter  v.  Goodin,  3  Ohio  St.  75,  78.  See  Hatch  ?>.  Palmer,  58  Me. 
271  ;  Brown  i'.  Laph  im,  3  Cush.  .551  ;  Bolton  v.  Ballard,  13  Mass.  227; 
Ketchum  v.  Shaw,  28  Ohio  St.  503. 

26  Eaton  V.  Simonds,  14  Pick.  98,  104 ;  Swaine  v.  Perine,  5  Johns. 
Ch.  482, 493. 

27  Bell  V.  Mayor,  10  Paige,  49,  55. 

28  Dean  v.  Phillips,  17  Ind.  406,  409  ;  Xewhall  v.  Lvnn,  101  Mass. 
428 ;  3  Am.  Rep.  387  ;  Frost  v.  Peacock,  4  Edw.  Ch.  678,  695 ;  Titus  v. 
Xeilson,  5  Johns.  Ch.  452,4.57;  Bell  v.  Mayor,  10  I'aige,  49,  .55  ;  State 
V.  Hinton,  21  Ohio  St.  509  ;  Eolsom  v.  Rhodes,  22  Ohio  St.  435,  436. 

29  Wheeler  v.  Morris,  2  Bosw.  524,  535  ;  Denton  v.  Nanny,  8  Barb. 
618,622;  Mills  v.  Van  Voorhies,  20  N.  Y.  412;  Ketchum  v.  Shaw,  28 
Ohio  St.  50:J,  .506.  Contra.  Pritts  v.  Aldrich,  11  Allen,  39, 40  ;  Reddick  v. 
Walsh,  15  Mo.  519,  .5;J8.  See  Lamb  v.  Montague,  112  Mass.  352,  353; 
Davis  V.  Wetherell,  13  Allen,  60,  63  ;  Robinson  v.  Shacklett,  29  Gratt. 
9J,  107.     See  post,  i  380. 

30  Vreeland  v.  Jacobus,  19  N.  J.  Eq.  231,  232;  Denton  xk  Nanny,  8 
Barb.  618,  621  ;  Unger  v.  Leiter,  32  Ohio  St.  210. 

31  Smith  V.  Jackson,  2  Edw.  28,  35  ;  infra,  n. :::!. 

32  State  II.  Hinton,  21  Ohio  St.  509,  515.  Husband  must  die  before 
the  sale :  Frost  v.  Peacock,  4  Edw.  678,  6J5. 

33  Relff  1'.  Horst,  5-5  Md.  42,  47.  S.  P.,  Cornog,  3  Del.  Ch.  407  ;  Har- 
row v.  John.son,  3  Met.  (Ky.)  578 ;  Jennison  v.  llapLtooiI,  14  I'ick.  345; 
19  Am.  Dec.  2)8  ;  Rutherford  v.  Nuince,  Walk.  (Miss. i  170  ;  Tucker  v. 
Field,  51  Miss.  191  ;  Van  Doren  %\  Dickerson,  33  N.  J.  Ki].  3ss  ;  Hineh- 
man  v.  Stiles,  9  N.  J.  Eq.  454  ;  Matthews  r.  Dnryea.  45  llarli.  69  :  Titus 
1'.  Neilson,  5  John.s.  Ch.  452;  Ha«  ley  r.  Bradford,  9  I'aige, 2i)l  ;  37  Am. 
Dec.  3;X>;  Smith  r.  Jackson,  2  E)(Iw.  Cli.  2S;  EInidorf  >•.  Lockwood,  57 
N.  Y.  322  ;  Fox  v.  Pratt,  27  Ohio  St.  512  ;  Culver  r.  Harper,  27  Ohio'St. 
464  ;  State  v.  Hinton.  21  Ohio  St.  509,  515  ;  Baker  v.  Fetters,  16  Ohio  St. 
596;  Reed  v.  Morrison,  12  Serg.  <fe  R.  IS,  21  ;  Chaffee  v.  Franklin,  11 
R.  I.  578  ;  Brown  v.  Duncan,  4  McCord,  346  ;  Seith  v.  Trapier,  1  Bail. 
Ch.  6:3;  Tibbetts  r.  I,angley,  12  S.  C.  465;  Boyd  v.  Martin,  9  Heisk. 
3S2  ;  HoUis,  4  Bnxt.  524  ;  Bover,  1  Cold.  12  ;  Thcmpson  v.  iLvman.  28 
Wis.  266.  See  J 11.  R.  S.  1880,  p.  425,  lo;  Ar.c.  Dig.  1874,  ?  2215 ;  Ky. 
R.  S.  1879,  p.  5C0, 1  5. 


§  262  DOWER.  390 

34  Hinchman  v.  Stiles,  9  X.  J.  Eq.  361,  362;  Titus  v.  Neilson,  5 
Johns.  Cli.  452,  457. 

3.5  Hinchman  v.  Stiles,  9  X.  J.  Eq.  361, 362  ;  State  v.  Hinton,  21  Ohio 
St.  509,  615  ;  supra,  n.  33. 

36  Nothingham,  1  Cart.  527;  Robinson  v.  Shacklett,  29  Gratt,  99. 
After  foreclosure  all  rights  in  lands  gone  :  Chew  i'.  Farmers,  9  Gill, 
301,  374  ;  Mantz  v.  Buchanan,  1  Mci.  Ch.  202,  204  ;  Hartshorne,  2  K.  J. 
Eq.  349,  35»  ;  Matthews  i<.  Duryea,  45  Barb.  63,  70  ;  Smith  v.  Jackson, 
2  Edw.  28,  35. 

37  Denton  v.  Nannv,  8  Barb.  618,  622 ;  Mills  v.  Van  Voorhies,  20 
N.  Y.  412  ;  23  Barb.  125 ;  Bell  v.  Mayor,  10  Paige,  49, 56  ;  Ross  v.  Board- 
man,  22  Hun,  527,  528  ;  Ketchum  v.  Shaw,  28  Ohio  St.  503,  506. 

I  232.  Inchoaie  dower,  incidents  of.  —  From  the  time  of 
the  miarriage,!  or  of  the  vesting  of  tlie  propertj'-  if  it  -was 
acquired  after  the  marriage,^  until  the  death  of  the  hus- 
band at  common  law,''  or  of  divorce,  his  insolvency, 
etc.,  under  statutes,*  dower  is  a  mere  inchoate  right.*  It 
is  not  vested  ;fi  the  legislature  may  change  it,"  though 
not  to  enlarge  it  as  against  one  Avho  has  purchased  the 
land  from  the  liusband.^  or  to  place  it  ahead  of  a  prior 
encunabrance ;  ^  it  has  been  called  an  expectancy  or 
possibility,"  more  than  a  possibility,  a  contingent  inter- 
est, not  an  interest  in  real  estate,"  not  an  estate, '^  a  mere 
contingent  right.i'  It  is  a  wife's  right  to  such  part  of  her 
liusband's  lands  as  the  law  at  the  tiine  if  his  death,!*  or 
of  the  alienation  if  he  has  aliened  it,'^  may  allow  her. 
It  is  certainly  a  Aaluable  right,"  and  has  manj'  of  the 
incidents  of  property  ;  ^^  its  probable  present  value  can 
be  comi)uted,'9  tliough  some  cases  say  it  has  no  present 
value  ;  ^^  it  is  a  valuable  consideration  for  a  conveyance, 
etc., to  the  wife; 2'  she  maj^  maintain  an  action  for  the 
protection  of  it,^''  for  example,  to  set  aside  a  deed  made 
by  the  husband  in  fraud  of  her  rights  before  ^  or  after  ^^ 
marriage,  or  to  recover  damages  against  one  who  has  se- 
cured her  joinder  in  her  husband's  deed  bj'  fraud  ;  ^=  she 
may  file  a  bill  to  redeem  ;  '^  in  some  States,  but  not  gener- 
ally,^ she  must  be  a  party  to  a  suit  affecting  the  land,'-^ 
and  in  case  of  a  foreclosure  during  coverture,  the  value  of 


II 


391  DOWER.  I  262 

her  inchoate  dower  will  be  set  aside  for  her  out  of  the 
surjilus.^  Still  inchoate  dower  cannot  be  bargained 
and  soldjS"  but  only  released  to  the  tenant  ;^'  and  if  the 
release  reserves  compensation  for  her,  her  right  thereto 
will  be  recognized  ;  ^'^  it  cannot  be  taken  in  execution  ;  ^ 
the  Statute  of  Limitations  does  not  run  against  it.^* 
Though  it  has  sometimes  been  questioned  whether 
inchoate  dower  is  an  encuuibrance,^^  tliat  it  is,  is  now 
settled  ;^  it  comes  within  the  covenant  against  encum- 
brances,^'' and  is  sucli  an  encumbrance  as  would  justify 
a  vendee  in  refusing  to  perform  his  contract ;  ^^  but  its 
existence  is  not  a  breacli  of  a  covenant  of  seisin  ;^^  nor 
is  there  a  breach  of  a  covenant  not  to  set  up  dower,^  or 
for  quiet  enjoyment,^^  or  of  general  warranty,^'^  until 
dower  has  been  claimed  and  set  off;  before  assignment 
only  nominal  damages  can  be  recovered  in  any  case.^^ 
A  suit  may  be  maintained  for  quieting  the  title  of  land 
in  which  inchoate  dower  is  claimed." 

1  Walt,  4  N.  Y.  95,  99  ;  ante,  I  2.j0. 

2  Price  v.  Hobbs,  47  Md.  333,  381 ;  ante,  i  246. 

3  Beiffw.  Horst,  55  Md.  42,  47  ;  ante,  I  251. 

4  Wright  V.  Oelviu,  85  Ind.  123  ;  Roberts  v.  Shroyer,  68  Ind.  64  ; 
ante,  'H  247,  251. 

5  Buzlck,  45  Iowa,  259,  262  ;  24  Am.  Rep.  740  ;  cases  cited  infra. 

6  Simon  v.  Canady,  53  N.  Y.  238,  303  ;  3  Am.  Rep,  523  ;  ante,  U  22, 
248. 

7  Thornbury,  18  W.  Va.  522,  527  ;  ante,  U  22,  248. 

8  Lucas  V.  Sawyer,  17  Iowa,  517,  521. 

9  Helphinstine  v.  Meredith,  84  Ind.  1,  3. 

10  Randall  v.  Kreiger,  23  Wall.  137,  14S. 

11  Bull.ard  v.  Briggs,  7  Pick.  533,  539  ;  13  Am.  Dec.  292. 

12  Simon  ^'.  Canadv,  5?  X.  Y.  293,303;  13  Am.  Rep.  523  ;  Moore  v. 
Mayor,  8  N.  Y.  110,  113  ;  53  Am.  Dec.  473  ;  post,  i  263,  n.  8. 

13  State  V.  Wincroft,  76  N.  C.  38, 39. 

14  Johnson  ?'.  V.in  Dyke,  6  McLean,  422,  441. 

15  Guerin  v.  Moore,  25  Minn.  462,465. 

16  See  O'Ferrall's  v.  Simplot,  4  Iowa,  381 ;  ante,  ?  24S. 

17  Bullard  v.  Briggs,  7  Pick.  533,  539  ;  19  Am.  Dec.  292  ;  Simon  v. 
Canady,  53  N.  Y.  29S,  303 ;  13  Am.  Rep.  523  ;  Miller  v.  C'rawfurd,  32 
Gratt.  -77. 

IS    Buzlck,  44  Iowa,  259,  262 ;  24  Am.  Rep.  740. 


g  262  DOWEK.  392 

19  Buzick,  44  Iowa,  253,  262  ;  Jackson  v.  Edwards,  7  Paige,  386,  408  ; 
2  Scribner  Bow.  6,  n.  5. 

20  Reiff  r.  Horst,  55  Xd.  42,  49  ;  Moore  v.  Mayor,  8  N.  Y.  110,  113  ;  59 
Am.  Dec.  473. 

21  Buzkk,  14  Iowa,  2.59,  262 ;  Bullard  v.  Briggs,  7  Pick.  533,  539 ; 
19  Am.  Dec.  2y2  ;  Reiff  r.  Horst,  oo  Md.  42,  49  ;  ante,  i  105. 

22  Buzick,  44  Iowa,  25;i,  262. 

23  Petty,  4  Mon.  B.  215,  233  ;  39  Am.  Dec.  501. 

24  Buzick,  44  Iowa,  259,  264  ;  Burns  v.  Lynde,  6  Allen,  305. 

25  Simon  r.  Canadv, 53  X.  Y.  298, 303,  304  ;  13  Am.  Rep.  523  ;  Russell 
V.  Taylor,  41  Midi.  702. 

26  Davis  i>.  Wetlierell,  13  AUen,  60,  63 ;  ante,  1 261. 

27  Pritts  V.  Aldrich,  11  Allen,  39,  40  ;  ante,  i  2fil  ;  jiost,  I  2S0. 
23    Greiner  v.  Klein,  23  Mich.  12,  IS  ;  ante,  ?  261  ;  post,  ?  280. 

29  Vreeland  v.  Jacobus,  19  X.  J.  Eq.  231,  232  ;  cmte,  i  261. 

30  McKee  ?■.  Remolds,  26  Iowa,  578,  584  ;  Reiff  v.  Horst,  55  Md.  42, 
47 ;  Davis  V.  Wetherell.  13  Allen,  60,  62  ;  Moore  v.  Mayor,  8  N.  V.  110, 
113 ;  59  Am.  Dec.  473  ;  pijst,  'i  263. 

31  Moore  r.  Mayor,  8  N.  Y.  110, 113  ;  59  Am.  Dec  473 ;  post,  {  2TI. 

32  Reiff  V.  Horst,  55  Md.  42,  49  ;  Miller  v.  Crawf urd,  32  Gratt.  277. 

33  Davis  I'.  Wetherell,  13  Allen,  fiO,  62  ;  post,  5  2&3. 

34  Davis  r   Wetherell,  13  Allen,  60,62;  pas«,  |  277. 

35  Powell  V.  Monson,  3  JIass.  317,  3.55;  Fuller  v.  Wright,  18  Pick. 
■Wo  ;  Kyce  v.  Oberts,  17  Ohio,  71. 

36  Blodsret  v.  Brent,  3  Cranch  C.  C.  304,  336  ;  Bamett  i\  Gaines.  8 
Ala.  273, 274.  8.  P.,  Duvall  r.  Craig,  2  Wheat.  45 ;  Parks  v.  Brooks,  16 
Ala.  529 ;  Shelton  v.  Carroll,  16  Ala.  148  ;  Springle  v.  Shields,  17  Ala. 
2.16;  Vance  v.  Hooper,  11  Ala.  552;  Beavers  v.  Smith,  11  Ala.  20; 
McLemore  v.  Mabsou,  20  Ala.  137;  Thrasher  v.  Pinkard,  34  Ala.  616  ; 
Smith  r.  Ackerman,5  Blackf.  542;  Whisler  v.  Hicks,  5  Bhickf.  10(j ; 
:«  Am.  Dec.  4M  ;  Clark  %■.  Richardson,  32  Iowa,  399  ;  Porter  )•.  No.ves, 
2  Me.  26;  11  Am.  Dec.  30;  Post  r.  Campan,  42  Mich.  95;  Bigelow  v. 
Hubbard,  97  Mass.  195  ;  Prescott  i-.  Trueman,  4  Mass.  627  ;  3  Am.  Dec. 
246 ;  Greenwood  ?>.  Lvon,  10  Smedes  &  M.  615  ;  43  Am.  Dee.  775 ;  Rus.s 
V.  Perry,  49 X.  H.  517  ;  Pitts  r.  Hoitt,  17  X.  H.  *«);  ''arter  ?>.  Dennian, 
23  X.  J.  li.  260  ;  Jones  v.  Gardiner,  10  Johns.  266  ;  Hill  v.  Ressegieu, 

17  Barb.  162  ;  Stevens  v.  Hunt,  15  Barb.  J7 ;  Ketchum  v.  Evert-son,  13 
Johns.  :i59  ;  7  Am.  Dec.  384  ;  Bituer  v.  Brough,  11  Pa.  St.  137  ;  Rank 
Cov.  109-111. 

37  Shearer  v.  Ranger,  22  Pick.  447,  449 ;  supra,  n.  36, 

38  Barnett  v.  Gaines,  8  Ala.  373,374.  S.  P  ,  Spinger  v.  Shields,  17 
.-Vla.2>)6;  Porteri'.  Xoyes,2Me.  26;  H.\m.Dec.30;  Fuller  r.  Wright, 

18  Pick.  405;  Greenwood  r.  Lyon,  10  Smedes  &  M.  615;  *!  Am.  Dec. 
775;  Beardslee  r.  Vnderhlll,  37  X.  J.  I^.  310;  Jones  v.  Gardiner,  10 
Johns.  266  ;  Bitner  i'.  Brough,  11  Pa.  St.  137.  But  see  Xyce  v.  Obert.-^, 
17  Ohio,  71,75. 

39  Lewis,  5  Rich.  12. 

40  Hudson  r.  Steere,  9  R.  I.  106,  109. 

41  Lewis,  5  Rich.  12. 

42  Learv  )•.  Dunham,  4  Ga.  593  ;  AVilson  v.  Taylor,  9  Ohio  St.  5.95 ; 
Johnson  r.  Xvce,17  Ohio,66  ;  49  Am.  Dec.  444  ;  Tuite  r.  MlUer, 5  WesU 
U  J.  413. 


393  DOWER.  g  363 

4^    Runnels  r.  Webber,  o.)  Me.  4SS;  Harrington  v.  Murph v,  103 Mass. 
■U    Madigan  v.  Welsh,  -22  Wis.  501 

^  263.  Consammats  dower  before  assigament — Incidents 
of.  —  On  the  husband's  death  at  t-ommon  law,i  or  di- 
vorce, etc.,  under  statutes,^  dower  is  consummate.^  It 
is  a  vested  right,*  which  cannot  be  taken  awa3%'  In 
•some  States  by  construction  of  statutes,  it  is  an  estate 
in  common  with  the  heirs  or  alienee  ;^  but  at  common 
law,  before  assignment  and  actual  admeasurement,  it 
is  a  mere  right  of  action^  growing  out  of  land;^  it  is 
not  an  estate  in  land  ;^  tlie  widow  is  not  seized  and  has 
no  right  of  entry ;!"  she  cannot,  except  by  the  law  of 
quarantine,^^  hold  possession  of  any  of  the  property  ;  i- 
she  cannot  enter  as  against  the  tenant, '^  or  maintain  a 
suit  of  ejectment,"  or  sue  her  husband's  alienee  for 
trespass;^  she  cannot  defend  against  entry  of  heir;'® 
she  cannot  proceed  for  partition  ;*'  and  it  is  even  ques- 
tioned whether  she  need  be  a  part}--  to  a  suit  respecting 
the  land;^  if  she  occupies  the  land  she  must  account 
for  all  its  fruits,  etc.,"  and  for  its  rents  and  profits ;  ^^  it 
is  a  naere  right  appendant  to  the  land  until  it  is  severed 
by  assignment.'-'  It  cannot  be  seized  in  execution,'^ 
though  her  creditors  can  in  equity  subject  it  to  their 
claims  ;^  in  one  case  the  court  compelled  her  to  trans- 
fer her  right  to  a  receiver,  who  then  had  dower  assigned 
for  the  benefit  of  her  creditors.^'  Slie  cannot  at  law 
transfer  it  so  as  to  give  her  alienee  the  right  to  sue  in  his 
own  name^  —  her  deed  does  not  estop  her  ;  ^6  but  such 
suit  may  be  maintained  in  her  name  for  the  benefit  of 
her  alienee,^  and  her  transfers  are  recognized  and  en- 
forced in  equitj'.'*  Nor  can  she  make  a  mortgage  •^  or 
lease**  of  it.  But  she  c-an  release  it  to  the  tenant,^!  and 
can  consent  to  an  award  in  place  of  it.*'^  It  is  an  ad- 
verse claim  against  the  projjerty  within  a  statute  re- 


g  263  DOWKU.  394 

specting  tho  quieting  of  titles.^  Being  sui  juris,  she 
may  make  any  personal  contract  respecting  her  dower 
I  hat  she  wishes.^*  Her  main  right  is  to  have  her  dower 
assign  ed.3» 

1  Reiir  V.  Horst,  55  Md.  Al,  Al ;  ante,  I  251. 

2  Wright  V.  Gebiti,  85  lud.  I'28  ;  ante,  U  2-J7,  251. 
:{    Price  V.  Hobbs,  47  Md.  351,  asi ;  cases  infra. 

4  Thornburj-,  18  W.  Va.  522,  527  ;  ante,  ?  22. 

5  Burke  i'.  Barron,  8  Iowa,  i:!2. 

6  See  Greathend,  42  f'oiin.  ;C4  ;  Stodman  r.  Fortune,  5  Conn.  462  ; 
Gomley  v.  Kinli-v,  7R  Pa.  St.  70 ;  Davison,  05  Pa.  St.  asH  ;  Grant  v. 
Parliam,  15  Vt.  fil ) ;  Oorliani  v.  Daniels,  23  Vt.  606  ;  Terry  v.  Burnell 
14  Fed.  Rep,  807,  810. 

7  Penniiiston  v.  Yell,  11  Ark.  212,  23!) ;  52  Am.  Dec.  262;  Summers 
V.  Babb,  13  111.483,484;  HiUeary,  26  Md.  274,  289;  Torrv  r.  Minor,  1 
Smedes  *  M.  Ch.  481) ;  Ray ner  v.  J^ee,  20  Mich.  384, 386  ;  Hoxsie  v.  Kl lis, 
4  R.  I.  123,  124  ;  Weaver  v.  Sturtevant,  12  R.  I.  5.37 ;  Downs  v.  Allen, 
10  Lea,  652,  608. 

8  Bogardus  v.  Parker,  7  How.  Pr.  303. 

9  Blodget?!.  Brent,  3  C'ranch  C.  C.  3!)4,  3:)6 ;  HiUeary,  26  Md.  274, 
289;  Hoxsie  »•.  Kllis,  4  H.  I.  123,  124;  Weaver  v.  Sturtevant,  12  R.  I. 
.537,  539  ;  Whvtc  r.  Muvor,  2  Swan,  .364,  367.  S.  P.,  Smith,  13  Ala.  329  ; 
Sharploy  v.  Jones,  5  Ilur.  (Del.)  373;  Hoots  v.  (iraham,  23  111.  81  ; 
Ri^yiKiliis  /•.  McCnrrv,  lOO  III.  356;  Tavlor  (>.  McCrackin,  2  niuckf. 
2«);  (';ir<'V  r.  Hnntin,  4  IJilil),  217;  .loiinson  v.  Shields,  32  lAh-.  421; 
Lolxiell  )'.'  Hayes,  IJ  Gray,  2;;ii ;  1!  cyimr  r.  Lee,  20  Mich.  .'Wl  ;  McGlan- 
ahan  v.  I'ortir,  10  ^Mo.  74i> ;  Wallir  r.  Mardus,  29  Mo.  25;  Johnson  v. 
Morse,  2  N.  H.  48;  Bleeeker  r.  llcinnon,  23  N.  J.  Kq.  123  ;  Wade  r. 
Miller,  32  N.  J.  L.  296  ;  Branson  r.  Yancv,  1  Dev.  Eq.  77  ;  Scott  v.  How- 
ard, 3  Barb.  319  ;  Jones  v.  lloUopetcr,  10  Serg.  <fe  R.  .•i26  ;  Weaver  r. 
Sturtevant,  12  R.  I.  537  ;  Lamar  c.  Scott, 4Rich.  516  ;  Guthrie  v.  Owen, 
JO  Yerg.  :W9  ;  Chapman  v.  Armistead,  4  Munf.  382;  Farnsworth  v. 
Cole,  42  Wis.  403. 

10    Hllleary,  26  Md.  274,  289  ;  Downs  v.  Allen,  10  Lea,  652,  60,8. 
U    Fully  discussed  Stewart  M.  A  D.  §  4.59. 

12  Hildreth  v.  Thompson,  16  Mass.  191 ;  siipra,  n.  9. 

13  Sheafe  r'.  O'Neil,  9  Mass.  13. 

14  Doe  V.  Smith,  2  Car.  <fe  P.  4:iO  ;  12  F.ng.  C.  L.  205  ;  Coles,  15  Johns. 
319;  8  Am.  Dec.  231;  Bradshaw?;.  Callaghan,  5  Johns.  80  ;  8  Johns.  435. 

15  Tuttle  V.  Burlington,  49  Iowa,  134.  135. 

16  Hildr(>th  v.  Thompson,  16  Mass.  191  ;  Evans  v.  AVebb,  1  Yeates, 
424  ;  50  Am.  Dec.  308. 

17  Reynolds  v.  McCurrv,  100  111.  ■%56  ;  Coles,  15  Johns.  319;  8  Am. 
Dec.  231 ;  Thorn  v.  Adams,  2  Whart.  188. 

18  Blodget  V.  Brent,  3  Cranch  C.  <'.  394,  .396.  See  Oivender  v. 
Smith,  8  Iowa,  360;  Stewart  )'.  Chndwick,  8  Iowa,  463;  Postlewaite 
V.  Howe,  3  Iowa,  365;  Mood.v  r.  Seaman,  40  Mich.  74;  Proctor  v. 
Bigelow,  .38  Mich.  282  ;  McClurg  r.  Turner,  74  Mo.  45  ;  Miller  v.  Tallev, 
48  Mo.  503;  ilanlenbeck  v.  Gronkright,  23  N.  J.  Eq.  407;  Tanner  v. 
Wiles,  1  Barb.  .560,  .564  ;  Bradshaw  r.  Callaghan,  5  Johns.  80  ;  8  Johns. 
435  ;  Pringle  v.  Gaw,  5  Serg.  &  R.  536  ;  Hoxsie  v.  Ellis,  4  R.  I.  123,  124  ; 
post,  i  280. 


393  DOWKR.  ^  263 

l!l  Bufld  V.  Hiler,  27  N.  J.  L.  -j:! ;  Kaiu  v.  Fi.slier,  6  N.  Y.  oU7  ;  Webb 
V.  Boyle,  63  N.  C.  271,  275. 

20  Grimes  v.  Wilson,  4  Blackf.  331. 

21  Summers  t;.  Babb,  13  111.  483, 484. 

22  Pennington  v.  Yell,  11  Ark.  212,  2.39  ;  52  Am.  Bee.  262  ;  Summers 
V.  IJabb,  13  111.  4*5, 484  ;  Gorch  v.  Atkins,  14  Mass.  378  ;  Moore  v.  Mayor, 

8  ^^  Y.  110,113;  6yAm.  Dec.  473;  Sutlitl"  r.  Forgev,  1  Cowen,  89,  96. 
S.  P.,  \Vallace  v.  Hall,  19  Ala.  367;  Newman  v.  Willetts,  48  111.  534  ; 
Hoots  V.  Graham,  23  III.  81 ;  Blair  v.  Harrison,  11  111.  3s4  ;  Rausch  v. 
Moore,  48  Iowa,  611;  30  Am.  Rep.  412;  furcv  )'.  Buntbiii,  4  liibb,  217; 
Petty  (I.  Malin,  15  Mon.  B.  591  ;  Va.sar  r.  Allen,  5  Me.  477  ;  Wallis  v. 
Smith,  1  Smedes  &  M.  22u  ;  Torrey  v.  Minor,  I  Smedes  &  M.  Ch.  483 ; 
Waller  ?>.  Manlus,  29  Mo.  55 ;  Johnson  v.  Morse,  2  N.  H.  48  ;  Jackson 
V.  Aspell,  20  Jolins.  411  ;  Webb  v.  Boyle,  63  N.  C.  271,  275;  Garretson 
V.  Brien,  3  Heisk.  534. 

23  Davison  v.  Whittlesey,  I  McAr.  163 ;  Stewart  v.  MoMartin,  5 
Barb.  4)8  ;  Tompkins  v.  Fonda,  4  Paige, 448  ;  Payne  v.  Becker,  87 
N.  Y.  153,  157. 

24  Payne  v.  Becker,  87  N.  Y.  153,  1.57. 

25  Weaver  v.  Sturtevant,  12  R.  I.  537,  540.  S.  P.,  Terry  v.  Burnell, 
14  Fed.  Rep.  807, 810 ;  Nelson  v.  Holly,  .50  Ala.  3  ;  Saltmursli  i'.  Smith, 
32  Ala.  404  ;  Wallace  v.  Hall,  19  Ala.  307  ;  Reed  v.  Ash,  30  Ark.  775  ; 
Jacks  V.  Dyer,  31  Ark.  334 ;  Carmall  v.  Wilson,  21  Ark.  (i2  ;  Hoots  v. 
Graham,  23  111.  81 ;  Summers  v.  Babb,  13  111.  483,  481 ;  Mc-tlock  v.  Lee, 

9  Ind.  298 ;  Strong  v.  Bragg,  7  Blackf.  62  ;  Houston  v.  S>m1(  v,  27  Iowa, 
183  ;  Tucker  V.  Vance,  2  Marsh.  A.  K.  4.58  ;  Johnson  r.  Shi.lds,  32  Me. 
424;  Rowe  v.  Johnson,  19  Me.  116;  Hildreth  v.  Thompson,  16  Ma,s8. 
191  ;  Leavitt  v.  Lamprey,  13  Pick.  382  ;  23  Am.  Bee.  Ohs;  Jones  v. 
Manby,  58  Mo.  559 ;  Jackson  v.  Aspell,  20  Johns.  411  ;  Sutlitf  v.  Forgey, 
1  Cowen,  89,  96  ;  Jackson  v.  Vanderheyden,  17  Johns.  167 ;  8  Am.  Bee. 
378;  Cox  V.  Jagger,2C'owen,638  ;  19  Am.  Bee. 522  ;  Douglass?'.  McCoy, 

5  Ohio,  522  ;  Miller  v.  Woodman,  14  Ohio,  518  ;  Lamar  v.  Scott,  4  Rich. 
516.    But  see  supra,  n.  6. 

26  Weaver  v.  Sturtevant,  12  R.  I.  537,  ^10. 

27  Robie  v.  Flanders,  33  N.  H.  524.  S.  P.,  Powell,  10  Ala.  900  ;  Hunt 
V.  Acre,  28  Ala.  6s0;  Itowo  »>.  Johnson,  19  Me.  146;  Thomas  v.  Simi>- 
son,  3  Pa.  St.  60,  71 ;  Lamar  v.  Scott,  4  Rich.  516. 

28  Tompkins  V.  Fonda,  4  Paige,  448.  S.  P.,  Brown  v.  Meredeth,  2 
Keen,  527  ;  Strong  v.  Clem,  12  Ind.  37  ;  Strong  v.  Bragg,  7  Blackf.  62  ; 
Maccubbin  v.  Cromwell,  2  Har.  &  G.  443  ;  Torrey  v.  Mnior,  1  Smedes 

6  M.  Ch.  489;  Porter?).  Everett,  7  Ired.  Eq.  1.52;  Wilson  v.  McLen- 
iighan,  1  McMull.  F.q.  .3-5.  Contra,  Saltmarsh  r.  Smith,  32  Ala.  404  ; 
Bialr  V.  HarrLson,  U  111.  ;i84. 

29  Strong  v.  Bragg,  7  Blackf.  62. 

30  Foster  ?>.  Gorton,  5  Pick.  1S.5.  S.  P.,  Blair  v.  Harrison,  11  111.  384  ; 
Cronde  v.  Ingraham,  13  Pick.  3:i ;  Hildreth  v.  Thompson,  16  Mass.  191. 

31  Meek  v.  Chamberlain,  8  Law  R.  Q.  B.  B.  31,  .34  ;  Mattock  v  Lee, 
9  Ind.  2!i8  ;  Summers  v.  Babb,  13  111.  483,  484  ;  Weaver  v.  Sturtevant, 
12  R.  I.  537,  540  ;  post,  I  271. 

32  Furber  w.  Chamberlain,  28  N.  H.  405;  Cox  v,  Jagger,  2  Cowen, 
638  ;  Shotwell  v.  Sedam,  3  Ohio,  5. 

33  Benoiat  v.  Murrin,  47  Mo.  537. 

'M    Consult  cases  supra,  notes  31,  32. 
35    Po»<,  2$  28.3-300. 


g  264  DOWKR.  398 

I  264.  Assigned  dower  —  Incidents  of.  —  After  assign- 
ment of  dower  and  entry  by  the  widow,  she  is  seized 
of  a  freehold  for  lier  life;'  her  estate  is  a  continuation 
of  her  husband's,^  and  relates  back  to  the  time  of  h:^ 
death,^  unless  tlie  assignment  has  been  against  common 
right,*  iu  whicli  case  her  estate  begins  from  the  time  of 
the  assignment.*  Her  estate  has  most  of  the  inciden..-; 
of  a  conventional  life  estate  ;^  she  must  pay  taxes  ^  and 
charges  8  of  every  kind  thereuison ;  she  is  entitled  to 
reasonable  estovers;^  slie  has  the  right  to  the  crops 
growing  on  the  property '<*  at  the  time  of  the  assign- 
ment;''  Iier  representatives  are  entitled  to  all  crops 
.sown  by  her,'-  and  to  arrears  of  rent  due  at  the  time 
of  her  death  on  a  lease  made  by  her ;  '^  she  holds  the 
property  subject  to  such  liens  as  are  paramovmt  to  her 
dower,"  but  free  from  all  others  ;  '^  she  may  alien  the 
estate,'^  and  it  may  be  seized  for  her  debts;"  on  her 
death  the  estate  ceases,'^  as  does  a  right  of  way  given 
her  therewith  ;  '*  and  her  representatives  cannot  claim 
betterments  put  on  the  property  by  her.^o  Her  posses- 
sion is  not  adverse  to  the  rcA^ersioner ;  -'  there  is  no 
privity  of  estate  between  tliem ;  "^^  a  remainder  cannot 
be  limited  after  her  dower ;  •^  she  may  make  any  con- 
tract she  pleases  ynih.  the  reversioner,-'  but  the  assign- 
ment of  dower  is  not  a  consideration  therefor.^^  In 
various  ways  she  may  foi-feit  her  dower,"^6a,s  by  waste;'^' 
but  the  strict  common  law  as  to  Avaste  is  not  generally 
enforced  in  the  United  States,-*  and  she  may  make  any 
reasonable  use  of  the  proiJcrty.''^ 

1  Whyte  V.  Mayor.  2  Swan,  364,  367  ;  Summers  v.  Babb,  13  111.  JS.'!, 
4S4. 

2  Moore  v.  Mayor,  8  N.  Y.  110,  113;  50  Am.  Dec.  473.  S.  P., 
Stevens,  3  Dana,  371  ;  Baker,  4  Me.  67  ;  Chilfls  v.  Smith,  1  Mfl.  Ch.  483  ; 
Windham  v.  Portland,  4  Miiss.  384  ;  Norwood  v.  Morrow,  4  Dev.  &  B. 
442,  448. 

3  Norwood  V.  Morrow,  4  Dev.  &  B.  442,  44S  ;  supra,  n.  2. 

4  Discussed  post,  ?  2S5. 

5  2  Scribner  Dow.  776. 


397  DOWER.  §  264 

6  Whyte  v.  Mayor,  2  Swan,  3M,  367. 

7  Graham  i'.  TJunigan,  2  Bosw.  516.    S.  P.,  Varney  ti.  Stevens,  22  ' 
Me.  3:{1,  3:m  ;  Stetson  v.  Dav,  .51  Me.  434  ;  Cains  v.  Chabert,  3  Edw.  Ch. 
312;   Bliiwell  v.  Greenshield,  2  Abb.  N.  C.  427;  Whyte  v.  Mayor,  2 
Swan,  304,  367  ;  Durkee  c.  Felton,  44  Wis.  467. 

8  Peyton  r.  Jeffries,  .50  111.  143;  Paving  assessment:  Whyte  i'. 
Mayor,  2  Swan,  264, 367.  Kepairs :  Haulenback  v.  Cronkright,  23  N.  J. 
Eq.  407. 

9  White  V.  Cutler,  17  Pick.  248. 

10  Kain  v.  Fisher,  6  N.  Y.  597, 598.  S.  P.,  Street  v.  Saunders,  27  ArkV 
5.54  ;  Talbot  v.  Hill,  6»  111.  106  ;  Kalston,  3  G.  Greene,  533 ;  Parker,  17 
Pick.  2:i6. 

11  Budd  V.  Hiler,  27  N.  J.  L.  43. 

12  2  Scribner  Dow.  780. 

13  Stockwell  V.  Sargent,  37  Vt.  16. 

14  2  Scribner  Dow.  775 ;  ante,  ?  258. 

15  2  Scribner  Dow.  775 ;  ante,  i  258. 

16  Summers  v.  Babb,  13  HI.  483,  484 ;  Windham  v.  Portland,  4  Mass.  ■ 
384,  ass.    S.  P.,  Matlock  v.  Lee,  9  Inrt.  2!)H  ;  Stevens,  3  Dana, 371 ;  Child 
('.  Smith,  1  Md.  Ch.  483  ;  Norwood  v.  Morrow,  4  Dev.  &  B.  442.    Con- 
sult ante,  I  263. 

17  Summers  v.  Babb,  13  III.  483,  484  ;  supra,  n.  16. 

18  Holmes  v.  McGee,  20  Miss.  411 ;  Stockwell  v.  Sargent,  37  Vt.  16. 

19  Hoffman  v.  Savage,  15  Mass.  130. 

20  Maddison  v.  Jellison,  U  Me.  482;   Bent  v.  Weeds,  44   Me.  45 ;  ' 
Wiltse  V.  Hurley,  11  Ohio,  473 ;  Cannon  v.  Hare,  1  Tenn.  Ch.  22. 

21  Chairs  t).  Hobson,  10  Humph.  .354. 

22  Adums  v.  Butts,  9  Conn.  79. 

23  Park  Dow.  340,  341 ;  2  Scribner  Dow.  773. 

24  Page,  20  N.  H.  128. 

25  Perkins,  ?  272  ;  Park  Dow.  341 ;  2  Scribner  Dow.  773. 

26  Discussed,  2  Scribner  Dow.  795. 

27  By  statute  in  Delaware,  Illinois,  Kentucky,  Maine,  Minnesota, 
Missouri,  New  .Jersey,  New  York,  North  ('arolina,  Ohio,  and  Rhode 
Island,  she  forfeits  dower  for  waste  ;  in  Maryland,  Michigan,  New 
Hampshire,  Oregon,  South  Carolina,  Virginia,  Vermont,  and  M'is- 
consin,  she  is  liable  on  damages  therefor :  2  Scribner  Dow.  800,  SOL 

28  Allen  v.  McCoy,  8  Ohio,  418. 

29  Joyner  v.  Speed,  68  N.  C.  236. 


H.  &  W.  — 94 


§  265  DOWER.  398 

Article  II.  —  Barring  and  Defeating  of  Dower. 

I  265.  Generally,  various  modes  of. 

J  2G6.  Antenuptial  settlement  or  agreement. 

5  207.  Postnuptial  settlement  or  agreement. 

5  268.  Act  of  husband  before  and  during  coverture. 

§  269.  Act  of  wife  during  coverture. 

5  270.  Release  of  dower,  generally. 

J  271.  Release  of  dower,  parties,  con.sideratlon. 

i  272.  Release  of  dower,  eifect  of. 

I  273.  Jointure,  legal  and  equitable. 

?  27-1.  Devise  in  lieu  of  dower. 

i  275.  Widow's  election. 

i  276.  Estoppel. 

?  277.  Limitations  and  laches. 

i  278.  Dedication  to  public  uses. 

J  279.  Termination  of  husband's  estate,  etc. 

i  280.  Legal  proceedings. 

i  281.  Divorce. 

8  282.  Bankruptcy  of  husband. 

?  265.  Tlie  various  ways  in  which  dower  may  be  pre- 
vented or  defeated.  —  A  widow  nuiy  have  no  right  to 
dower  either  because  the  right  never  attached,  or  be- 
cause after  attaching  it  was  destroyed ;  tlie  riglit  may 
be  prevented  or  defeated.  Though  it  is  extremely  dif- 
ficult to  lay  down  any  general  rule  which  might  not 
mislead,  the  following  statement  is  substantially  cor- 
rect :  The  husband  may  avoid  the  inconvenience  of 
dower,  by  taking  such  a  title  in  himself  tliat  the  requi- 
sites of  dower  will  not  exist,  or  by  before  marriage 
changing  liis  tenure  for  the  same  purpose,  but  this 
must  not  be  done  secretly  or  it  will  be  a  fraud  on  the 
wife  ;  so  he  may  prevent  dower  by  making  a  settlement 
before  marriage  in  accordance  with  the  statute  of  uses 
or  similar  acts,  by  legal  jointure.  After  marriage  and 
acquisition  of  his  proi>erty,  he  can  in  most  .States  do 
nothing  to  relieve  it  of  dower  without  his  wife's  con- 
sent ,  but  he  can  make  a  provision  for  her  by  deed  or 


399  DOWER.  2  266 

will  in  lieu  of  dower  —  an  equitable  jointure  —  by  the 
acceptance  of  whicli  after  his  death  slie  will  be  barred  of 
dower.  The  wife  nia^'  prevent  dower  by  covenanting 
before  marriage  never  to  claim  it ;  during  coverture 
she  may  release  it  by  complying  with  the  statute  ;  and 
after  lier  Iiusband's  deatii,  she  may  bar  herself  by  any 
agreement  she  may  make,  or  by  accepting  any  pro- 
vision in  its  stead,  or  bj'^  any  conduct  Avliich  would 
make  it  inequitable  to  claim  it,  or  by  her  laches  or  de- 
lay. So  dower  may  be  defeated  by  operation  of  law,  as 
wlien  the  husband's  estate  terminates,  or  is  converted 
into  personalty  bj'^  legal  proceedings  during  coverture, 
or  Avhen  the  realtj^  is  talien  during  coverture  by  right 
of  eminent  domain,  or  wlien  the  husband  and  Avife  are 
absolutely  divorced.  These  different  modes  of  barring 
and  defeating  dower  are  discussed  in  the  following 
sections. 

\  266.  Antenuptial  settlement  or  agreement  as  a  bar  to 
dower. — By  the  common  law  no  provision  or  settle- 
ment made  by  a  man  before  his  marriage  in  favor  of 
liis  future  wife,  could  bar  dower,'  because  dower  being 
a  freeliold  estate,  by  a  maxim  of  the  common  law, 
could  not  be  barred  by  a  collateral  satisfaction ;  -^  but 
the  statute  of  uses  provided  that  a  settlement  of  a  cer- 
tain kind  —  a  legal  jointure — made  before  marriage 
should  bar  dower,^  even  without  the  wife's  consent;* 
this  statute  was  adopted  in  the  United  States  as  a  part 
of  the  common  law,^  and  somewhat  similar  statutes 
have  been  passed  in  man\'  of  the  United  States.*  By 
the  common  law,  also,  no  contract  between  the  hus- 
band and  wife  before  marriage  could  bar  dower,^  be- 
cause, first,  an  agreement  was  merged  by  the  marriage 
of  the  contracting  parties,^  and  second,  an  agreement 
to  release  a  right  not  vet  existing  was  void,'    And  oven 


§266  DOWER.  400 

now,  except  under  the  express  provisions  of  some  stat- 
ute, no  settlement  or  agreement  between  husband  and 
wife  before  marriage  is  a  bar  to  dower  at  law.^o  But 
equity,  from  analogy  to  the  statute  of  uses,  at  an  early 
date  compelled  a  widow  to  elect  between  her  dower 
and  any  provision  made  for  her  before  marriage  ex- 
pressly in  lieu  of  dower,  and  held  her  barred  of  her 
dower  by  the  acceptance  of  any  such  provision."  And 
in  courts  of  equity  a  marriage  contract  was  held  an  ex- 
ception to  the  rule  that  the  marriage  of  the  contracting 
parties  merges  the  contract,!^  and  a  wife's  covenant  not 
to  claim  dower — marriage  itself  being  a  sufficient  con- 
sideration therefor'* —  has  always  been  enforced.^*  Of 
an  adult  woman's  power  in  equity  to  absolutely  bar 
herself  of  dower,  there  is  no  doubt  whatever,  says  Lord 
St.  Leonards ;  '*  if  she  acts  with  her  eyes  open  she  may 
take  even  a  chance  in  lieu  of  dower  ;'*  she  is  Hui  juris, 
and  there  is  no  reason  why  her  covenant  should  not  be 
enforced ;  '^  and  so  it  is  settled  that,  by  an  agreement 
before  marriage,  husband  and  wife  may  vary  or  wholly 
waive  their  rights  in  each  other's  property. '^  Still,  if  it 
is  stipulated  that  the  wife  shall  receive  a  certain  pro- 
vision in  lieu  of  her  dower,  and  this  stipulation  is  not 
carried  out,  she  is  released  from  her  contract ;!'  but  if 
she  accepts  some  other  provision  after  her  husband's 
death,  in  lieu  of  the  one  which  has  failed,  she  is  barred,™ 
An  antenuptial  settlement  is  of  course  invalidated  by 
fraud,  and  a  husband  is  required  to  be  particularly  open 
in  making  such  a  contract  with  his  wife.^'  A  contract 
expressly  referring  to  dower  has  no  eflfect  on  the  wife's 
thirds.22 

1  Vincent  v.  Spooner,  2  Cush.  467, 473. 

2  Hastings  v.  Dickinson,  7  Mass.  153,  155  ;  5  Am.  Dec.  34.  S.  P., 
Vernon.  4  Rep.  1,4;  O'Brien  v.  Elliott,  15  Me.  125,  127  ;  32  Am.  Dec. 
137  ;  liOgun  V.  Phillips,  is  Mo.  22,  25  ;  Jones  v.  Powell,  6  Johns.  Ch.  196, 
200;  Murphy,  12  Ohio  8t.  407,  400. 

3  Co.  Lltt.  36  6  ;  Vernon, 4  Eep.  1,  3  a  ;  27  Henry  VIII.,  ch.  10,  \  9. 


401  DOWER.  §  267 

4  1  Greenl.  Cruise,  199,  §  37  ;  1  "Wash.  Real  Prop.  p.  26.'5 ;  2  Scrlbner 
Dow.  •405  ;  iMst,  I  273. 

5  Alex.  Brit.  Stat,  in  force,  pp.  301,  302. 

6  See  Ark.  Dig.  1874,  JJ  2218-2220  ;  111.  R.  S.  18S0,  p.  426,  U  7-11  ;  Mo. 
R.  S.  1879,  i  2202, 

7  Gibson,  15  Mass.  lOfi,  110;  8  Am.  Dec.  94;  Logan  v.  Phillips,  18 
Mo.  22,  25  ;  Murphy,  12  Ohio  St.  407, 409,  416. 

8  See  Long  v.  Klnuey,  49  Ind.  235,  238  ;  Smiley,  18  Ohio  St.  543, 544  ; 
ante,  I  44. 

9  Ha.stings  v.  Dickinson,  7  Mass.  153, 155 ;  5  Am.  Dec.  34 ;  Logan  v. 
Phillips,  IS  Mo.  22,  25  ;  Murphy,  12  Ohio  St.  407,  409,  416. 

10  Martin,  22  Ala.  86,  104  ;  Andrews,  8  Conn.  79,  84  ;  Cauley  v.  Law- 
son,  5  Jones  Eq.  132,  134  ;  Murphy  v.  Avery,  1  Dev.  &  B.  25  ;  Murphy, 
12  Ohio  St.  407,  411,  417  ;  Gelzer,  1  Bail.  Kq.  387,  388. 

11  Logan  V.  Phillips,  18  Mo.  22,  26.  S.  P.,  Andrews,  8  Conn.  79,  85  ; 
McGee,  91  111.  518,  551  ;  Jordan  v.  Clark,  81  111.  465,  466;  Hastings  v. 
Dickinson,  7  Mass.  153,  155 ;  5  Am.  Dec.  34  ;  post,  'H  273,  274,  276. 

12  Miller  v.  Goodwin,  8  Grav,  512,  544  ;  Crane  v.  Gough,  4  Md.  311, 
331 ;  McCampbell,  2  Lea,  661,  664  ;  ante,  i  44. 

13  Wentworth,  69  Me.  247,  253 ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  J  33. 

14  Dyke  %'.  Kendall,  2  DeGex,  M.  &  G.  209,  216,  218,  219  ;  Andrews,  8 
Conn.  79,  84  ;  Culbertson,  .37  Ga.  296,  299  ;  McGee,  91  111.  548,  551  ;  Jor- 
dan V.  Clark,  81  111.  465,  466  ;  Wentworth,  69  Me.  247,  2.52  ;  Naill  v. 
Maurer,  25  Md.  5132,  539  ;  Busey  v.  McCurle  v,  61  Md.  436, 443  ;  Freeland, 
128  Mass.  50.1,  510  ;  Jenkins  v.  Holt,  109  Mass.  261  ;  Miller  ?>.  Goodwin, 
8  Gray,  .542,  .541 ;  Vincent  v.  Spooner,  2  Cash.  467,473;  r.oKan  v.  Phil- 
lips, 18  Mo.  22,  28  ;  Heald,  22  N.  H.  265  ;  Canidcii  /■.  Joins,  23  N.  J.  Eq. 
171,173;  Cauley  t'.  Lawson,  5  Jones  Eq.  132,  i:n  ;  :\Iuriihy,  12  Ohio  St. 
407,  417  ;  Bowen,  32  Ohio  St.  164,  180  ;  Mintier,  28  Ohio  St.  307,  312,  315  ; 
Gelzer,  1  Bail.  Eq.  .387,  3o8 ;  Findlev,  11  Gratt.  4:i4,  437  ;  Charles,  8 
Gratt.  486  ;  .56  Am.  Dec.  155  ;  Faulkner,  3  Leigh,  255  ;  23  Am.  Dec.  264  ; 
Stewart  M.  &  D.  il  32-43. 

15  Dyke  v.  Eendall,  2  DeGex,  M.  &  G.  209,  216 ;  13  Eng.  L.  &  Eq.  404. 

16  Caruthers,  4  Bro.  C.  C.  500;  Dyke  v.  Kendall,  2  DeGex,  M.  &  G. 
209,  218. 

17  Logan  v.  Phillips,  18  Mo.  22,  28. 

18  Wentworth,  69  Me.  247,  2.52;  Naill  ?'.  Maurer,  25  Md.  532,  539; 
Findley,  11  Gratt.  4:«.  437  ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  U  32-13. 

19  Freeland,  128  Mass.  509,  511  ;  Gibson,  15  Mas.s.  106,  112  ;  8  Am. 
Dec.  94  ;  Camden  v.  Jones,  34  N.  J.  Eq.  171,  173. 

20  Camden  v.  Jones,  23  N.  J.  Eq.  171,  173  ;  post,  I  276, 

21  Freeland,  12S  Mass.  509,  510 ;  Bierer,  92  Pa.  St.  265  ;  Stewart  M. 
&  D.   i  38  ;  ante,  'i  110. 

22  Findley,  U  Gratt.  4:i4,  438, 

^  267.  Postnuptial  settlement  or  agreement  as  a  bar  to 
dower,  —  Any  agreement  between  husband  and  wife  was 
at  common  law  void,i  becau.se  husband  and  wife  were 
one,''  and  because  a  wife  could  not  contract  at  all ;  ^  and 
though  the  fiction  of  the  unity  of  liusband  never  had 


§  267  DOWEE.  402 

a  footing  in  equity,*  and  has  been  much  modified  by 
modern  statutes  at  laAv,^  and  therefore  a  wife  can  bj^  a 
contract  wit li  reference  to  her  statutory  *!  or  equitable" 
estate  bind  such  estate  at  all  events  in  equity,  her  ca- 
pacity to  contract  generally  must  be  expressly  given  ;  ^ 
and  as  dower  is  neither  equitable^  nor  statutory  i"  sei^a- 
rate  estate,  but  a  right  sui  generis  arising  by  operation 
of  law,"  she  can  make  no  contract  sxiih.  reference  to  it 
except  under  the  provisions  of  a  statute  giving  her  the 
power  to  contract  in  all  cases  or  expressly  referring  to 
it.i'-^  Statutes  have  been  passed  in  all  those  States 
where  a  husband  cannot  defeat  dower  by  his  separate 
deed,!^  authorizing  married  women  to  release  their 
dower  in  a  prescribed  way ;  i*  these  statutes  must  be 
strictly  comi^lied  with,^'  and  a  release  not  valid  at  law 
is  not  valid  in  equity.^^  Equity  will  not  even  correct  a 
deed  as  to  the  wife,^'  and  certainly  will  not  enforce  a 
defective  release  as  a  contract  to  convey .1*  When  the 
question  arises  as  to  the  validity  of  a  release  to  the  hus- 
band under  one  of  these  statutes  which  authorizes 
releases  generally,  it  must  be  remembered  that  in  deal- 
ing with  her  husband  a  wife  is  said  to  be  under  a 
double  incapacity,  that  of  wife  and  that  of  married 
woman, '9  and  that  it  is  fairly  settled  that  under  a  stat- 
ute authorizing  a  married  woman  to  contract  generally', 
she  cannot  contract  with  her  husband  ;2<'  aecordinglj', 
it  has  been  held,  that  a  release  of  dower  under  a  stat- 
ute directly  to  the  husband  is  void, 2*  especially  where 
the  statute  requires  her  to  join  with  her  husband ;  ^- 
and  that  even  when  she  is  authorized  to  contract,  any 
agreement  between  them  for  the  release  of  dower  is 
void.^  And  this  is  true  though  the  release  was  com- 
manded by  a  court  of  equity.^*  A  contrary  decision  in 
Iowa  stands  by  itself.^  But,  granting  the  capacity  of 
husband  and  wife  to  contract  with  each  other  during 


403  DOWEK.  §  267 

coverture,  there  seems  to  be  nothing  in  the  nature  of 
dower  to  except  it  from  the  rule  that  to  avoid  circuity 
of  action  an  existing  right  maj^  be  equitablj^  barred  by 
an  agreement  never  to  claim  it ;  ^6  such  a  covenant 
should  be  enforced  just  as  an  antenuptial  covenant  is.^' 
Under  the  statute  of  uses,  a  settlement  made  on  a  mar- 
ried woman  during  coverture  in  lieu  of  dower  puts  her 
to  an  election, 28  and  it  is  settled  in  equity  that  a  widow 
cannot  take  both  a  provision  in  lieu  of  dower  and  dower 
itself.'^  (This  is  true  as  to  devise  s  in  lieu  of  dower  nearly 
every~\vhere  by  statute.^")  So  tliat,  while  by  a  mere  set- 
tlement on  his  wife  not  expressly  in  lieu  of  dower  or 
clearly  inconsistent  therewith  a  husband  does  not  affect 
her  right  to  dower  at  all,^i  if  by  agreement  with  him 
she  accepts  a  provision  in  lieu  of  dower  and  after  his 
death  retains  or  receives  it,  she  ratifies  her  contract  and 
is  barred.^-  But  if  she  has  spent  or  wasted  the  i^rovis- 
ion  before  his  death,  she  may  have  her  dower  without 
making  any  return.^^  It  is  necessary  in  order  to  estop 
her,  that  she  should  enjoy  the  consideration  of  her 
agreement  in  part  at  least  after  his  death.^*  This  ques- 
tion has  arisen  several  times  in  regard  to  deeds  of  sepa- 
ration. ^^ 

1  Barron,  21  Vt.  375,  398  ;  ante,  ?  il. 

2  Scarborough  v.  Watlsins,  9  Men.  B.  540,  545 ;  50  Am.  Dec.  523  ; 
ante,  I  41. 

3  White  V.  Wager,  25  N.  Y.  328,  332,  333 ;  post,  ?  3.i7. 

4  Morrison  v.  Thistle,  67  Mo.  536,  600 ;  Albin  v.  Lord.  39  N.  H.  196, 
204  ;  ante,  i  -iZ. 

5  Cole  V.  Van  Biper,  44  111.  56,  e^  ;  ante,  U  217-243. 

6  See  Wicks  v.  Mitchell  9  Kan.  80,  87  ;  Radford  v.  Carwilo,  13  W. 
Va.  573,  661 ;  Krouskop  v.  Shoutz,  51  Wis.  201,  214  ;  ante,  Vi  2^7,  238. 

7  Yale  v.  Dederer,  22  N.  Y.  451,  459  ;  68  N.  Y.  329  ;  ante,  U  -06,  207. 

8  Albin  v.  Lord,  39  N.  H.  196,  202  ;  Ballin  v.  Dillaye,  37  jS^.  Y.  35,  S9; 
post,  U  369-376. 

9  Because  .such  estate  Is  always  created  by  contract :  Morrison  v. 
Thistle,  67  Mo.  h<»i,  .WJ. 

10  Bressler  v.  Kent,  61  111.  426.  428  ;  14  Am.  Rep.  67  ;  McCormick  v. 
Hunter,  50  Ind.  186, 188 ;  Ulp  v.  Campbell,  19  Pa.  St.  361,  36  J ;  Towasend 
V.  Brown,  16  S.  C.  91. 


§  267  DOWER.  404 

U    Martin,  22  Ala.  86, 10-5  ;  ante,  U  262,  263. 

12  Martin,  22  Ala.  86,  105.  S.  P.,  Stidhara  v.  Matthews,  29  Ark.  630. 
a57,  6.VS  ;  Davis  v.  McDonald,  42  Ga.  205,  207  ;  Lathrop  v.  Foster,  51  Me. 
.367,  36!) ;  Davis,  61  Me.  395,  399  ;  Grove  v.  Todd,  41  Md.  633,  639  ;  20  Am. 
Kep.  76  ;  Keeler  v.  Tatnell,  23  N.  J.  L.  62 ;  White,  16  N.  J.  L.  202,  214  ; 
Conover  v.  Porter,  14  Ohio  St.  450,  454  ;  post,  J  270. 

13  See  1  Scribner  Dow.  ch.  29  ;  post,  ?  208. 

14  These  statutes  differ  greatly :  Post,  §§  270-272. 

15  Grove  v.  Todd,  41  Md.  633,  639  ;  20  Am.  Rep.  76  ;  supra,  n.  12. 

16  Stidham  v.  Matthews,  29  Ark.  650,  657,  65.8  ;  post,  H  270,  271,  404. 

17  Wiswall  V.  Hall,  3  Paige,  313,  317  ;  Carr  v.  Williams,  10  Ohio,  305, 
310  ;  36  Am.  Dec.  87  ;  Davenport  v.  Sovll,  6  Ohio  St.  459, 466 ;  post,  I  272. 

18  Stidham  v.  Mi  tthews,  20  Ark.  650,  658  ;  Atwater  v.  Buckingham. 
5  Day,  492,  497  ,  antt,  U  170,  171  ;  post,  i  407. 

19  White  V.  Wager,  25  N.  Y.  32S,  332-334  ;  ante,  i  43. 

20  Haker  v.  Boggs,  63  111.  161, 163  ;  Whitney  v.  Closson,  Mass.  Nov, 
1884, 1  Daily  Law  Reo.  No.  31  ;  Knowles  v.  Hull,  99  Mass.  562,  .564,  565  ; 
Lord  V.  Parker,  3  Allen,  127,  129  ;  Aultman  v.  Obermeyer,  6  Neb.  260, 
264  ;  Savage  v.  O'Neill,  42  Barb.  374,  379  ;  White  v.  Wager,  25  N.  Y. 
328,  330-334.  Contra,  Bank  v.  Banks,  101  U.  S.  240,  244,  245  ,  Klnkead,  3 
Biss.  405,410;  Wells  v.  Gaywood,  3  Colo.  487,  4;)4 ;  Hamilton,  89  111. 
349,  .351  ;  Robertson,  25  Iowa,  350,  355  ;  Allen  v.  Hooper,  .50  Me.  371,  374, 
375  ;  Jenne  ?'.  Marble,  37  Jlich.  319,  .321.  .323  ;  Ransom,  30  Mich.  .328, 330  ; 
Rankin  v.  West,  25  Mich.  195,200;  Burdeno  v.  Amperse,  14  Mich.  91, 
97;  Albin  ?'.  Lord,  39  N.  H.  1!I6,  203,  204;  Zimmerman  ?•.  Erhard,  53 
How.  Pr.  11, 13;  Woodworth  v.  Sweet,  51  N.  Y.  81 ;  ante,  §  43. 

21  Rowe  V.  Hamilton,  3  Me.  63,  67  ;  Carson  v.  Murrav,  3  Paige,  483, 
503 ;  Grain  v.  Cavana,  36  Barb.  410, 412, 413  ;  Graham  v.  Van  Wyck,  14 
Barb.  531,  532 ;  infra,  n.  22. 

22  Markling,  30  Ark.  17,  24 ;  Pillow  v.  Wade,  31  Ark.  678,  6.81  ;  Rowe 
V.  Hamilton,  3  Mo.  63,  65;  Carson  v.  Murray,  3  Paige,  4S3,  503 ;  Mal- 
lory  V.  Horan,  12  Abb.  Pr.  N.  S.  289,  295. 

23  Whitney  v.  Closson,  8.  T.  C.  Mass.  Nov.  8,  1884,  1  Daily  Law 
Rec.  No.  •?!.  See  Martin,  22  Ala.  86,  104  ;  PlUow  v.  Wade,  31  Ark.  678, 
681 ;  Markling,  .30  Ark.  17,  24  ;  Howe  v.  Hamilton,  3  Me.  63,  67  ;  Shaw 
V.  Reese,  14  Me.  432,  436;  Graham  v.  Van  Wvck,  14  Barb.  531,  5:52; 
Crain  v.  Cavana,  36  Barb.  410.  412;  Townsend,  2  Sand.  711,  713,  714; 
Mallorv  v.  Horan.  12  Abb.  Pr.  N.  S.  2.89,  2!io  ;  Carson  v.  Murray,  3 
Paige,  483,  .503  ;  Walsh  v.  Kelly,  34  Pa.  St.  84,  85  ;  Evans,  3  Yeates,  507, 
508 ;  post,  I  270. 

24  Craln  ik  Cavana,  36  Barb.  410, 413. 

25  Blake,  7  Iowa,  46,  54.    See  Lake  v.  Gray,  30  Iowa,  415, 419. 

26  Hastings  v.  Dickinson,  7  Mass.  153, 155 ;  5  Am.  Dec.  34. 

27  See«7i/e,  ?2fi6. 

28  27  Henry  VIII.  ch.  10,  ?  9  ;  Co.  Lltt.  .36  6. 

29  Jones  v.  Powell,  6  Johns.  Ch.  194,  200  ;  post,  ??  273-276. 
.30    Jennings,  21  Ohio  St.  56,  70  ;  post,  §  274. 

31  Mitchell,  8  Ala.  414,  424 ;  Mitchell  v.  Wood,  60  Ga.  525,  531  ; 
O'Brien  ■!'.  Elliott,  15  Me.  125,  127  ;  32  Am.  Dec.  137  ;  Swalne  v.  Perlne, 
5  Johns.  Ch.  4S2,  490  ;  9  Am.  Dec.  318. 

33  Martin,  22  Ala.  86,  104  ;  Livelv  r.  Paschal,  .35  Ga.  218,  223  ;  Stod- 
dard V.  Cutcompt,  41  Iowa,  329,  333 ;  Day  v.  West,  2  Edw.  Ch.  5J2,  5J4  ; 


405  DOWER.  ?  268 

Crain  v.  Cavana,  36  Barb.  410,  413;  Townsend,  2  Sand.  711,  Tin,  714; 
Kvaiis,  3  YeatL'S,  507,  oOi  ;  Parliani,  6  Humph.  2S7,  297. 

S'?  Crain  v.  Cavana,  3P  Barb.  410,  413  ;  Carson  v.  Murray,  3  Pai^e, 
4i!,  003. 

34  Townsend,  2  Sand.  711,  713,  714  ;  supra,  n.  32 ;  post,  J§  402,  420. 

35  Carson  v.  Murray,  3  Paige,  483,  503  ;  Day  v.  West,  2  Edw.  Ch. 
592,  .=>94  ;  Hlvans,  3  Yeates,  507,  503  ;  Parham,  6  Humph.  287,  2J7  ;  Bur- 
dick  V.  Briggs,  11  Wis.  126.  132 

I  2ai.  Act  of  husband  before  or  after  marriage  barring 
or  defeating  dower.  —  Seisin  of  the  hu.sband  during  cover- 
ture is  one  of  the  requisites  of  dower,'  so  the  wife  has  no 
dower  in  lands  aliened  by  him  be.'ore  their  marriage  ;  ■* 
and  any  encumbrances  placed  by  him  on  the  iDroperty 
before  marriage  are  superior  to  dower,^  though  he  was 
an  infant.^  And  the  wife  is  barred  though  the  convey- 
ance is  not  executed ''or  recorded  "at  the  time  of  the 
marriage,  and  tliough  it  is  fraudulent  as  to  creditors  if 
not  set  aside  during  coverture  ; '  and  his  agreement  to 
convey  is  paramount  to  dower.^  A  deed  made,^  or  a 
judgment  confessed,'"  on  the  day  of  the  marriage,  is, 
unless  proved  to  have  been  made  or  entered  before  the 
marriage,  deemed  inferior  to  dower.  A  legal  jointure  by 
the  hu.sband  bars  dower."  There  are  various  devices 
by  which  a  husband  without  materially  affecting  his 
enjoyment  of  his  property  could  at  common  law  pre- 
vent his  wife's  dower  from  attaching :  thus,  he  could 
convey  the  legal  title,  there  being  no  dower  in  eqviitable 
estates ;  ''^  or  change  a  fee  into  a  long  leasehold ;  '^  or 
convey  the  property  indirectly  to  himself  for  life  with 
power  to  deed  or  will."  But  all  such  antenuptial  acts 
of  his  must,  in  order  to  affect  dower,  have  been  known 
to  his  intended  wife  ;  a  secret  disposition  of  his  property 
is  a  fraud  on  her.'»  And  so  when  his  conveyances  dur- 
ing coverture  defeat  her  dower,  any  conveyance  made 
for  this  purpose  alone  may  be  set  aside  as  fraudulent. '^ 
But  as  a  general  thing,  after  marriage  no  act  of  tlie  hus- 
band can  defeat  the  wife's  dower."    This  was  the  rvde 


g  368  ]>owi;u.  40() 

at  common  law,'^  and  is  still  hy  statute  tho  rulo  in  Aia- 
bama,'9  Arkansas,'^"  Dohiwaro,'-'' District  of  Colnmbia,-^^ 
Florida,'-'-'  Illinois,^^  Kentucky ,'■"  Maino,'^"  Maryland,'^ 
Michigan,'^  Missouri, '-""Now  Jersey' ('"Now  York,"'  North 
Carolina,''-  Ohio,""  On^jjon,"*  Ilhodo  Island,"-"  South  Caro- 
lina,"^ Virginia,"'  and  Wisconsin.""  In  ICni^land,""  Con- 
necticut,'" <}corj;ia,"  Now  Hampshire,*'  Pennsylvania,*" 
Tennessee,**  and  Vermont,*^  however,  a  husband  may 
by  statute  dispose  of  his  property  witliout  his  wife's 
joinder.  These  statutes  apply  only  to  contracts  nuido 
by  tho  husband  after  their  passajije  ;*'^  and  do  not  enable 
the  husbaiul  to  defeat  dower  by  will.*' 

1  Iloustciii  V.  .Smith,  SS  N.  C.  .'US,  :ti;t  ;  ante,  ?  2r>-2. 

2  ]lii\vllii(f8  !'.  Adiinis.TMU.  2G,54;  Helh  D.  Cocke,  1  Jliiiid.  ;iC.I,:il(i  ; 
ante,  J  '2:>i. 

:i    llaiKis  V.  Kontlall,  15  Ohio,  671,  078  ;  ante,  i  258. 

4  Oldham  v.  Salp,  1  Mon.  ]$.  378. 

5  Gully  1).  Ray,  18  Mon.  11.  107,  llS;  Kawlliins  v.  Adiims,  7  Md. 
26,  .W. 

6  Kichardson  v.  Skoindd,  4n  Me.  .^S'.). 

7  KiiiK,  f>l  Ala.  '179,  -LSI  ;  WItlied  v.  Malloy,  I  C'lish.  i;«,  110. 

8  Adkliis  v.  Holmes,  12  Curt.  1!I7,  r.lil ;  Klntiier?'.  McHiic,2  Curt. 
45:1;  Dean  v.  Rlitclicll,  I  Marsh.  .1.  .1.  -ird  ;  (JalticH,  it  Mon.  11.  2!ir, ;  -IS 
Am.  Dee.  I.r,  ;  Howie  r.  Herrv,  :t  IMiI.  Ch.  ;i5!l ;  Cowman  i'.  JIall,  ;i  Ulll 
<fe  J.  -.VM  ;  Firestone,  2  Ohio  !St.  11/). 

9  Stewart,  3  Marsh.  .T.  .T.  18,  49  ;  23  Am.  Doc.  396. 

10  Inpjram  )-.  Morris,  4  liar.  (Del.)  111. 

11  Discussed,  post,  i  "293. 

12  Discussed,  atitf,  i  258. 

13  SpaiiKh'r  1'.  Staiiler,  1  Md.  Ch.  38,  .37  ;  ante,  ?  254. 

14  Link  I'.  Kdniondson,  19  Mo.  487. 

15  Cranson,  4  Mich.  230,  23C, ;  Nye  v.  ratterson,  35  Mi.-h.  415,  417; 
I'omerov,  51  Mow.  I'r.  'JUS/jiK  ;  Hrewer  11.  Connel,  11  Jlumph.  5(X),  501  ; 
discussed,  .Stewart  M.  &  J).  J  44. 

16  (iihsoii  V.  Ilutehlnsoii,  I'JO  Mass.  27,  32  ;  Crecellus  v.  Ilorst,  II  Mo. 
App.  :«M,  3l)(!  ;  .Teiin  V,  21  Vt.  3J4,  3-J(..  Hut  .see  Ktroad  v.  O'JMell,  M  Mo. 
App.  581  ;  20  CA'i\t.  I..  .1.  308. 

17  Oreeellns  v.  Ilorst,  11  Mo.  App.  .•»4,  306.  See  Gerry  v.  Stinsnn,60 
Me.  188,  lid  ;  ante,  i  "258. 

IS  2  Rcrlhner  Dow.  603 ;  Benson  v.  Scot,  3  T.ev.  .38.'>,  .386  ;  D-ivIa  »>. 
McDonald,  42  Ga.  205;  Sutherland,  69  III.  481;  Miller  v.  Hteirer,  33 
Mich.  I'M  ;  Grady  1'.  McCorkle,  .'i7  Mo.  172  ;  17  Am.  Hci>.  676. 

19  Ala.  Code  1878,  p.  578  ;  Irvine  v.  Armlstead,  46  Ala.  ;i63. 

20  Ark.  DIf?.  1H71,  p.  155  ;  Tate  r.  Jay,  31  Ark.  576;  Menfee,  3  KnR. 
fl;  Crittenden  v.  .J(jhiisoii,  6  JOmk.  94;  Crittenden  v.  WoodruiJ',  6 
Eng.  82. 


407  DOWER.  2  269 

21  Del.  R.  C.  1874,  p.  533  ;  Griffin  v.  lieece,  1  Har.  (Del.)  508. 

22  D.  C.  R.  C.  ch.  49,  i  1. 

23  Fla.  Dig.  lasi,  p.  475  ;  McMahon  v.  Russell,  17  Fla.  6!)S. 

24  Til.  n.  S.  l>!Hn,  Hoylfs  v.  McMurpli  v,  ■'■>5  111.  T.W, ;  .Sisk  v.  Smith,  r, 
ril.  .503  ;  (li)Icl  V.  llvim,  14  111.  5;t;  Mowbry,e4  111.  3»3;  (SutherUuKl,  HU 
111.  4(11  ;  Taylor,  5.'.  111.  2.«. 

25  Ky.  R.  S.  1N73,  p.  5'.'7  ;  ITarrow  v.  Johnson,  3  Met.  (Ky.)  .578. 

26  M".  R.  S.  1871,  p.  75r. ;  Drummond,  40  Me.  85  ;  Simonton  v.  CJray, 
34  Me.  50. 

27  Md.  R.  C.  1878,  p.  307  ;  Prire  v.  Hobbs,  47  Mfl.  3.5!) ;  MiWred  v. 
Nell,  2  Ulaiiil,  3.54  ;  KwliigH  v.  Kiinols,  2  Bland,  3.54. 

28  Mich.  R.  S.  1882,  §  .5745  ;  Miller  v.  Steffer,  .32  Mich.  194. 

20  Mo.  R.  S.  1879,  p.  :m;  Grady  v.  MoCorkle,  .57  Mo.  172;  17  Am. 
Rep.  (1711 ;  Mount  v.  V:illc>,  19  Mo.  fi21  ;  Hornsey  v.  Casey,  21  Mo.  .5-1.5 ; 
Wtone,  18  Mo.  389  ;  Kennerly  v.  Mo.  11  Mo.  204. 

30  N.  .1.  R-v.  1877,  p.  320  ;  Hays  v.  Whltall,  13  N.  J.  Eq.  241 ;  Yeo  v. 
Merceieuu,  1»  N.  J.  L.  3«7  ;  Lloyd  v.  Conover,  2.5  N.  J.  L.  47,  51. 

.11  N.  Y.  R.  S.  1882,  p.  2197  ;  Harrison  v.  Pefk,  .56  Barb.  2r)l ;  .Swalne 
V.  I'erine.  5  Johns.  C'h.  487,  490  ;  9  Am.  Dec.  3W. 

32  N.  C.  Bat.  Rev.  1H73,  p.  838  ;  O'Kelly  v.  Williams,  84  N.  C.  281 ; 
Rose,  63  N.  ('.  3!)1  ;  Huttoii  v.  Askew,  60  N.  C.  172;  8  Am.  Rep,  500; 
Holllday  V.  McMillan,  79  N.  C.  <J15. 

33  Ohio  R.  S.  1880,  p.  1048. 

34  Oreg.  G.  L.  1874,  p.  584. 
.35    R.  I.  P.  S.  1882,  p.  637. 

36  S.  C.  R.  S.  1873,  p.  429 ;  Avant  v.  Robertson,  2  McMiill.  21.5, 

37  Va.  R.  S.  1873,  p.  8.53  ;  Macauiey  v.  Dismal,  2  Rob.  Va.  507  ;  llig- 
ginbotham  v.  Cornwell,  8  Urate.  83  ;  56  Am.  Dec,  i;iO, 

38  Wis.  R.  8.  1S78,  p.  620. 

39  3  and  4  Wm.  IV.  cli.  10.5,  {  2  ;  Fry  v.  Noble,  24  Law  J.  N.  8,  501  ; 
7  DeUe.\,  M.  <fe  U.  r,S7. 

40  Conn.  P.  A.  1875,  p.  376 ;  Laws  of  1877,  p.  211  ;  Stewart,  5  Conn, 
820  ;  Steadman  v.  Fortune,  5  Conn.  462  ;  Calder  v.  Bull,  2  Root,  50. 

41  Oa.  Code  1873,  p.  .304,  ?  1763  ;  Code,  1SS2,  ?  1763  a  ;  Day  v.  .Solomon, 
40  Oa.  32  ;  Mart  r.  McCullnni,  28  Ou.  478  ;  Green  r.  Causey,  10  Ga.  435  ; 
Simons  V.  I.atimcr,  37  Ou.  490. 

42  N.  II.  O.  L.  IS7S,  p.  474. 

43  Reed  v.  Morrison,  13  Berg.  &  R.  18,  21  ;  1  .Seribner  Dow.  62.5, 

44  Tinn.  R.  S.  1871,  J  2.398  ;  Combs  v.  Young,  4  Tex.  218  ;  Chester  v, 
Qreer,  5  Humph.  2li. 

45  Vt.  R.  .S.  18S0,  i  2215 ;  Thayer,  14  Vt.  107  ;  39  Am.  Dec.  211 ;  Ladd, 
14  Vt.  185  ;  Gorliam  v.  Daniels,  23  Vt.  Cm. 

46  Fry  n.  Noble,  7  DeGe.x,  M.  &  O,  0S7, 

47  Stewart,  6  Conn.  317, 

§  269.  Wife's  acts  during  coverture  which  defeat  dower. 
—  Under  .statutes  such  as  1.1  Edward  I.,  ch.  3t,  a  wife 
may  defeat  her  dower  by  elopement  and  adultery ,^  or 


g  270  DOWER.  408 

by  adultery  alone,''  or  by  abandonment  alone;*  but 
this  result  from  her  breaches  of  marriage  obligations 
depends  on  statute  entirely.*  Nor  can  any  act  in  the 
nature  of  a  contract  affect  her  rights  to  dower  except  by 
virtue  of  a  statute ;  her  dower  must  be  released  in  the 
mode  ijrescribed  by  law.^ 

1  See  Alex.  Brit.  Stat.  p.  13,S  ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  {  178. 

2  Ga.  R.  C.  1873,  §  1764. 

3  Thornberry,  18  W.  Va.  522 ;  ."Stewart  il.  &  T>.  J  177. 

4  See  Stewart  M.  &D.  ??  177, 178. 

5  Sisk  V.  Smith,  S  111.  503,  50'J ;  post,  i  276. 

?  270.  Belease  of  dower,  generally.  —  It  was  long  doubt- 
ful whether  a  wife  could  release  her  dower  at  all ;'  but 
it  Avas  finally  settled  at  common  law  that  she  could  re- 
lease bj^  fine  or  common  recovery.*  In  Massachusetts, 
it  was  released  from  early  times  by  deed  tlirough  cus- 
tom ;*  and  now,  wherever  the  sole  deed  of  the  husband 
will  not  destroy  dower,*  statutes  provide  for  its  relin- 
quishment by  her.5  But  separate  property  acts  have 
no  effect  on  a  wife'.s  interest  in  lier  husband's  lands,^  .so 
that  her  release  of  dower  stands  on  a  different  footing 
from  her  ordinary  conveyances.'  The  provisions  of 
the  statute  must  be  strictly  complied  with,^  and  a  re- 
lease not  good  at  law  is  not  good  at  all;^  equitj'- will 
not  even  rectify  a  deed  as  against  the  wife  ;  i"  nor  does 
anything  short  of  an  actual  release,  for  example,  an 
agreement  to  give  a  relea.se,"  have  any  effect  on  her 
right.^^  So  that  dower  cannot  be  released  by  parol, '* 
but  only  by  deed  duly  sealed,"  unless  of  course  the 
statutes  require  no  seal.^»  Nor  will  a  release  be  pre- 
sumed from  adverse  possession  until  twenty  years  after 
the  husband's  death  ;  ^*  and  a  release  will  never  be  pre- 
sumed to  have  been  executed  during  coverture  in  favor 
of  one  Avho  does  not  claim  under  the  husband  but  ad- 
A-ersely  to  him.i"    The  deed  of  release  need  not  be  in 


409  DOWER.  §  270 

any  particular  form,i*  but  in  most  States  it  must  ex- 
pressly state  that  the  purjiose  of  the  wife  is  to  release 
her  dower  18 — even  that  she  signed  "in  tolcen  of  lier 
free  consent,"  has  been  lipid  not  sufficient;'^"  but  in 
other  States  it  suffices  if  she  join  in  tlie  granting  clause,^' 
and  if  there  are  no  limiting  words,  she  grants  all  her 
interest;"^  and  in  New  Hampshire,  by  custom,  her 
mere  signature  Ijeneath  her  husband's  is  sufficient,'^ 
and  the  same  seems  to  be  the  effect  of  the  Illinois 
statute. 2*  The  deed  does  not  take  effect  until  delivery, 
and  untU  that  time  she  may  revoke  her  signature.^ 
The  fact  that  some  defect  in  the  lease  is  due  to  her 
fraud  makes  no  difference.^^  It  seems  that  a  married 
woman  cannot  execute  a  blank  deed  of  release,  leaving 
it  to  her  husband  to  fill  it  up.^ 

1  Lampet,  10  Coke,  49 ;  2  Scribner  Dow.  283, 284. 

2  Haverln^on,  Owen,  6  ;  Beckwith,  2  Coke.  57  a  ;  Park  Dow.  200  ; 
2  Scribner  Dow.  2S5  ;  Powell  v.  Monson,  3  Mason,  Si7,  351;  Chase,  1 
Bland,  206,  228  ;  17  Am.  Dec.  277  ;  Jackson  v.  Gilchrist,  15  Johns.  89, 
109. 

3  French  v.  Peters,  a3  Me.  396,  408  ;  nail  v.  Savage,  4  Mason,  273. 

4  Discussed  ante,  I  2fiS. 

5  The  statute  of  the  particular  State  should  be  carefully  examined. 

6  McCormlck  v.  Hunter,  50  Ind.  18fi,  188  ;  Blake,  7  Iowa,  A'\,  51,  5") ; 
rip  V.  Campbill,  19  Pa.  St.  301,  3()3 ;  Townseud  t'.  Brown,  10  S.  C.  91 ; 
a)de,  i  267. 

7  Ante,  \l  205,  236  ;  post,  Deeds  of  Marhikd  Womex,  l'(  394-JOS. 

»  Russell  V.  Amphlet,  27  Ark.  .339,  341 ;  Stidham  v.  ^UxUhpWH,  29 
Ark.  6.30,  6.")7,  653  ;  Davis  ?'.  McDoiialfl,  42  Ga.  205,  207  ;  Gi'dvci'.  'lold, 
41  Md.  6:i3,  639  ;  20  Am.  Rep.  76  ;  Conover  v.  Porter,  14  Ohio  St.  4.50, 
4.54.  See  Ravertv  v.  Fridge,  3  McLean,  2:'.0 ;  Clark  v.  Redman,  1 
Blackf.  .379;  12  Am.  Dec.  213;  O'Ferrall  v.  Simplot,  4  Iowa,  3S1  ; 
Rogers  i'.  Woody,  23  Mo.  .>;8  ;  Sheppard  ?i.  Wardell,  1  N.  J.  L.  4."0 ; 
Moore  1'.  Thomas,  1  Oreg.  201  ;  Thompson  v.  Morrow,  .5  So-g.  &  R. 
2iJ  ;  9  Am.  Dec.  358  ;  Kirk  v.  Dean,  2  Binn.  341  ;  2^oiit,  H  400,  401. 

9    Carr  v.  Williams,  10  Ohio,  305,  310  ;  36  Am.  Dec.  87  ;  infra,  n.  12. 

10  Davenport  v.  Sovil,  6  Ohio  St.  459,  466  ;  infra,  n.  12. 

11  Atwater  v.  Buckingham,  5  Day,  492,  497  ;  infra,  n.  12  ;  pont,  ?  407. 

12  Stidman  v.  Matthews,  29  Ark.  6-50,  6.58  ;  Atw.ater  v.  Bncki:igham, 
5  Day,  4'.)2,  497  ;  White,  16  X.  J.  L.  207,  21 1  ;  Marvin  v.  Smith,  46  N.  Y. 
571,  .574 ;  Wiswall  r.  Hall,  3  Paige,  313,  3!7;  Green  v.  Branton,  1  Dev. 
Eq.  500,  .503;  Purcfll  v.  Goshorn,  17  0!>io,  10.5,  124;  44  Am.  Dee.  448; 
Davenport  v.  Sovll,  6  Oliio  St.  45  \,  461 ;  C  irr  v.  Williams,  10  Ohio,  305, 
310  ;  38  Am.  Dee.  87.  S  ■  ■  Tcvis  v.  Ri  Irir  '.son,  7  Mon.  654,  6"9  ;  Ri-h- 
inond  V.  Robinson,  12  Mich,  l;j3,  201 ;  Martiu  v.  Dwelly,  6  Wend.  9,  13  ; 

H.  &  W.  — 35. 


g  271  DOWER.  410 

21  Am.  Dee.  245 ;  Eoseburgh  v.  Sterling,  27  Pa.  St.  292, 203 ;  pout,  ?  404. 
Cintra,  Lake  v.  Gray,  f.O  Iowa,  41.5,  413 ;  County  v.  Geiger,  1  Call, 
190,  19.% 

n  Davis,  fil  jNle.  39.">,  390  ;  Lathrop  v.  Foster,  51  Me.  .^R7, 369  ;  Worth- 
ingtoii  V.  Middlftoii,  6  Dana,  :;00,  303  ;  Keeler  v.  Tatnell  23  N.  J.  L.  62. 

14  Manning  v.  Laboree,  33  Me.  343,  346.  S.  P.,  Brown  v.  Starke,  3 
Dana,  316;  Sargent  v.  Roberts,  34  Mo.  i:S,  137  ;  Task^r  v.  Bartictt,  5 
Cush.  359;  Giles  v.  Moore,  4  f;rav,600,601 ;  Poster  r.  Deuuison,  9 Ohio, 
121  ;  Walsh  v.  Kelly,  34  Pa.  St.  84,  85. 

15  2  Scribner  Dow.  20S. 

16  Barnard  v.  Edwards,  4  N.  H.  321,  327  ;  17  Am.  Dec.  403 ;  post, 

17  Durham  v.  Angier,  20  Me.  242,  245. 

18  See  Dnnrlas  v.  Hitchcock,  12  How.  256, 267  ;  Meyer  r.  Gossett,  33 
Ark.  377,  3sO  ;  Diivis  ri.  Bartholemew,  3  Ind.  485, 491  ;  Frost  v.  Dociing, 
21  Me.  156, 159;  Usher?;.  Richardson,  29  Me.  415:  Stearus  v.  Swift,  8 
Pick.  5.32,  5.35  ;  Gray  v.  McCune,  23  Pa.  St.  447,  451. 

19  Hall  t'.  Savage,  4  Mason,  273,  275  ;  Powell  v.  Sronson,  3  Mason, 
347,  349  ;  Davis  v.  Bartholemew,  3  Ind.  485, 491 ;  Cox  v.  Wells,  7  Blackf. 
410;  Hatcher  V.  Andrews,  5  Bush,  5G1,  .565;  McDowell  n  Prather,  8 
Bnsh,4fi,  61;  L.athrop  v.  Foster,  51  Jle.  3(17.  .'r.:! ;  Stevens  v.  Owen,  25 
Me.  94,  99  ;  Fowler  v.  Shearer,  7  Mass.  14,  20  ,  Catlin  v.  Wave,  9  M;uss. 
218,  220;  6  Am.  Dec.  56  ;  Leavitt  v.  Damprey,  13  Pick.  382;  23  Am. 
Dec.  685;  MoFarland  v.  Febigor,  7  Ohio,  194,  195;  28  Am.  Doc.  632 ; 
Carter  v.  Goo^Mn,  3  Ohio  St.  75,  7S.  In  such  case  no  words  of 
grant  are  necessary  :  Stearus  v.  Swift,  8  Pick.  532,  535. 

20  Stevens  v.  Owen,  25  Me.  94,  98. 

21  Learned  v.  Cutler,  IS  Pick.  9,  12  ;  Gililan  v.  Swift,  14  Hun,  574, 
576  ;  Smith  v.  Hany,  l(i  Oliio,  lS/1,  223. 

22  Daly  v.  Willis,  5  Lea,  100,  104. 

23  Burge  v.  Smith,  27  X.  H.  332,  338  ;  Dustin  v.  Steele,  27  N.  11.  431, 
432. 

24  Johnson  t'.  Montgomery,  51  111.  IS5, 190. 

25  Leland,  13  Pa.  St.  84,  S5.  :^ot  after:  IMcXeelv  v.  Kncker,  6 
Blackf,  391,  394. 

26  McFarland  v.  Febiger,  7  Ohio,  194,  105;  28  Am.  Dec.  C32;  }io.ft, 
?5  416,  418. 

27  Drurv  v.  Foster,  2  Wall.  24,  34  ;  Conover  t'.  Porter,  14  Ohio  St. 
450,  454  ;  ijost,  U  400,  402,  407 

?  271.  Release  of  dower,  partios,  consideration,  etc.  — 
Unless  the  statute  exi^resslj'  authorizes  this,'  a  wife 
cannot  release  her  dower  by  her  sole  deed,"  but  must 
join  with  her  husband.^  But  she  need  not  execute  the 
deed  at  the  same  time  as  her  husband,*  and  may  even 
re-execute  it  if  it  is  as  first  defectively  acknowledged.' 
It  has  the  same  effect  as  her  joinder  with  her  husband 
if  she  jdiiis  with  his  attorney  in  faet,^  or  in  case  of  his 


4!1  DOWEK.  §  271 

insanity,  with  his  gnardian.'  Though  slie  may  have 
another  sign  the  release  for  her  in  her  presence,^  except 
under  the  Connecticut  statute,^  she  cannot  release  her 
dower  by  power  of  attorney,^"  except  where  expressly 
authorized  by  statute  ;"  nor  can  her  guardian  release 
her  dower.12  But  statutes  providing  for  the  release  of 
dower  have  rereronce  solely  to  the  disability  of  covert- 
ure,^3  and  a  release  though  duly  executed  Avill  not  be 
valid  if  the  wife  is  an  infant ;  i^  this  disability  is  totally 
distinct  from  that  of  coverture,'^  and  renders  the  deed, 
under  the  better  view,  voidable, ^^  or,  as  it  is  sometimes 
said,  void  ;  '^  if  voidable,  it  is  avoided  by  her  subsequent 
deed  of  the  same  property.'^  For  like  reasons  an  insane 
wife  cannot  release  dower,'®  And  a  statute  providing 
that  any  Avoman  of  lawful  age  may  release  her  doAver, 
means  laAvful  age  for  contracting,  not  laAvf  ul  age  for  mar- 
rying.-* But  statutes  sometimes  proA'ide  specially  for  the 
release  of  doAver  when  the  Avife  is  an  infant,-'  or  insane.'^'^ 
As  a  rule,  statutes  removing  the  general  incapacities  of  a 
married  Avoman  do  not  affect  her  caiiacities  toAvards  her 
husband,^  and  therefore,  a  married  Avoman's  release  of 
her  doAver  to  her  husband  is  A-oid;"-*^  —  the  same  rules 
applicable  in  law  to  her  ordinary  contracts  Avith  her 
husband  apply.^  The  release  cannot  be  made  to  a 
stranger,-^  but  only  to  one  Avho  in  some  Avay  holds 
under  the  husband  ;2'  to  the  grantee  of  the  husband,^ 
or  one  Avho  afterwards  buys  the  fee ;  "■^  to  the  OAvner  of 
the  foe;^"  to  the  equitable  OAvner;^!  to  one  Avho  has 
Avarranted  the  title  ;^^  for  the  release  operates  by  Avay 
of  estoi^pel,^^  and  the  estoppel  must  be  mutual; 3*  in- 
choate doAver,  it  must  be  remembered,  cannot  bo  bar- 
gained and  sold  but  only  relcased.^s  The  Avifo  may 
reserve  a  consideration  moA'ing  to  herself  for  her  re- 
lease,^^  but  none  is  imiilied,^^  and  a  consideration 
moA'ing  to  her  husband  is  sufficient.^s 


§  271  DOWER.  412 

1  Moore  v.  Tisdale,  5  Mon.  B.  352,  356.    As  in  Md.  R.  C.  1878,  p.  48:?, 

2  Husband  must  join  also  in  release  of  dower  in  former  hus- 
band's lands :  Osborn  v.  Horine,  19  111.  124,  125. 

3  Moore  ?'.  Tisdale,  5  Mon.  B.  3.52,  .156  ;  Shaw  v.  Ru.ss,  14  Me.  432 : 
French  v.  Peters.  33  Me.  3!»6,  410 ;  Page,  6  Cush.  196,  VJS ;  Stearns  v. 
Swift,  8  Pick.  532,  536;  Rannels  v.  Gehnor,  IS  Cent.  L.  J.  182.;  Mallorv 
V.  Horan,  12  Abb.  Pr.  N.  S.  289,  205;  WillinR  v.  Peters,  7  Pa.  St.  287, 
288  ;  T'lp  V.  Oamphell,  19  Pa.  St.  .361,  36.3.  But  S"e  Powell  r.  Monson.  3 
Mason,  347,  351.     Contra,  Gordon  v.  Haywood,  2  N.  H  402,  405. 

4  ForsT  ?'.  Gregorv,  10  Mon.  B.  175,  ir,0 ;  Frost  ?•.  Peering,  21  Me. 
1.56,  1.59  ;  Ludlow  v.  O'Nfill,  2)  Ohio  St.  181,  183  ;  Williams  v.  Robson,  6 
Ohio  St.  510,  515  ;  Montgomery  v.  Hobson,  Meigs,  437,  451. 

5  Newell  v.  Anderson,  7  Ohio  St.  12, 15. 

6  Fowler  v.  Shearer,  7  Mass.  14,  21  ;  Glenn  v.  Bank,  8  Ohio,  72,  79. 

7  Rannels  r.  Gehnor,  9  Mo.  App.  .506,  511  ;  18  Cent.  L.  J.  182. 

8  Frost  r.  Deering,  21  Me.  156, 159.    See  post,  ?  412. 

9  Lindsey  v.  Brown,  13  Conn.  192, 194, 195. 

10  Lewis  V.  Coxe,  5  Har.  (Del.)  401, 402  ;  Dawson  v.  Shirley,  6  Elackf. 
.531,  532  ;  Steele  v.  Lewis,  1  Mon.  48  ;  Shanks  r.  Lancaster,  5  Gratt.  110, 
118  ;  .50  Am.  Dec.  108  ;  Sumner  v.  Conant,  10  Vt.  9,  20  ;  post,  i  406. 

11  De  Bar  v.  Priest,  6  Mo.  App.  531,  5.^5. 

12  Eslava  v.  Lepretre,  21  Ala.  504,  529  ;  56  Am.  Dec.  266. 

13  W'atson  r.  Billings,  38  Ark.  278,  280  ;  42  Am.  Rep.  1  ;  Phillips  v. 
Green,  3  Marsh.  A.  K.  7,  11  ;  23  Am.  Dec.  124  ;  Prewitt  v.  Graves,  5 
Marsh.  J.  J.  115,  120;  Webb  v.  Hall,  35  Me.  336,  .3.38;  Bool  v.  Mix.  17 
Wend.  119, 129 ;  31  Am.  Doc.  285  ;  Hughes  v.  Watson,  10  Ohio,  127, 134  ; 
Thomas  v.  Gammel,  6  Leigh,  9, 12. 

14  Webb  V.  Hall,  a5  Me.  a36,  338  ;  supra,  n.  13. 

15  Bool  V.  Mi.x,  17  Wend.  119,  129;  31  Am.  Dec.  285;  supra,  n.  13; 
P'-,st,  ?  3.39. 

16  Cresinger  v.  'Welch,  15  Ohio,  1.59,  191  ;  45  Am.  Doc.  565.  S.  P., 
Watson  t>.  BilIings,.3S  Ark.  278,  2S1  ;  42  .\m.  Rep.  1  ;  Pliillipsr.  Green, 
3  Marsh.  A.  K.  7,  11  ;  23  Am.  Dec.  124  ;  Adams  r.  Palmer,  .51  Me.  480, 
488;  Yourse  i\  Norcours,  12  Mo.  549.  .56:!;  51  Am.  Dec.  175;  Bool  v. 
Mix,  17  AVend.  119, 1.30  ;  31  Am.  J)(r-.  285  ;  Hughes  v.  Watson,  10  Ohio, 
127,  1.34  ;  Thomas  v.  Gammol,  6  Leigh,  9, 12. 

17  Glenn  v.  Clarke,  .53  Md.  .580,  603,  6M  ;  Chandler  v.  McK'nnerv.  6 
Mich.  217,  220;  Sandford  v.  McLean,  3  Paige,  117,  121;  23  Am.  Dec. 
773  ;  Schrader  v.  Decker,  9  Pa.  St.  14,  16  ;  49  Am.  Dec.  5.38. 

18  Youse  V.  Norcoms.  12  Mo.  549,  504  ;  51  Am.  Dec.  175  ;  Cresinger 
V.  Welch,  15  Ohio,  1.5!),  191 ;  45  Am.  Dec.  .565.  If  she  avoids  it,  she  need 
not  pay  back  any  of  the  purchase  money  :  Markhara  v.  Merrett, 
8  Miss.  4.37,  444  ;  post,  ?  412.  Age  is  presumed  :  Battin  v.  Bigelow,  1 
Peters  C.  C.  452,  45.3. 

19  McElwain,  29  111.  442,  44.3. 

20  ISIcMorris  v.  Webb,  17  S.  C.  5-58,  562  ;  43  Am.  Rep.  629. 

21  McMorris  v.  Webb,  17  S.  C.  5.58,  561  ;  43  Am.  Rep.  629 ;  Aid.  R.  C. 
1S76,  I  2236  ;  Ind.  R.  S.  1881,  ?  29.3<J  ;  Me.  R.  S.  1871,  p.  757,  ?  6. 

22  Iowa  R.  S.  18Sn,  p  2216-2219;  Mass.  P.  S.  1882,  p.  MO,  |  20  ;  Mo. 
R.  S.  1879,  ?  2235 ;  Ohio  R.  S.  1880,  ?  5722 ;  Va.  Code,  1873,  p.  933,  i  11 ; 
Wis.  R.  S.  1878,  ii  2225,  2226. 


413  DOWER.  §  272 

23  Discussed  ante,  §?  14,  43. 

24  Martin,  22  Ala.  80,  lot ;  Mnrklins,  30  Arl^.  17, 24  ;  Pillow  r.  Wado, 
31  Ark.  07H.  6^1  ;  Kowt>  v.  HaiiiiltDii,  3  Me.  f>3, 1)7  ;  JIullory  v.  Horaii,  12 
Abb.  Pr.  N.  S.  2Sa,  2\)o  ;  Craiu  v.  Cavaiia,  :«  ]',arb.  410,  412  ;  Graham  v. 
Van  \V.vcl<,  14  Barb.  531,5:!2;  Towiisoml,  2  8aiid.  711,713,714;  Walsh 
V.  Kell.v,  34  Pa.  St.  84,  85  ;  Burdiclc  v.  Briggs,  11  Wis.  126, 132.  But  see 
Blake,  7  Iowa,  40,  54. 

25  Consult  fully  ante,  ?  43. 

26  Stiflham  ?>.  Matthews,  29  Ark.  e'W,  6."j9  ;  Chicago  v.  Kinzie,  49  III. 
28!l,  2<i5;  Kobbiiis  %\  Ki:izio,  45  III.  3.>4,  35);  La  Framboise  v.  Crow,  56 
111.  1!>7,  200  ;  Summers  v.  Babb,  13  111.  483,  484  ;  Harriman  v.  Gray,  49 
Me.  537,  538;  French  v.  Lord,  6J  Me.  537,  542  ;  ReilT  v.  Ilorst,  55  Md.  42, 
47 ;  Marvin  v.  Smith,  46  N.  Y.  571,  574  ;  Mallory  v.  Horan,  12  Abb.  Pr, 
N.  S.  289,  2J5. 

27  Reiff  V.  Horst.  55  Md.  42,  47  ;  supra,  n.  26. 

28  Marvin  v.  Smith.  46  N.  Y.  571,  574  ;  sujyra,  n.  26. 

29  Harriman  r.  Gray,  49  Me.  537,  538. 

30  Summers  )'.  Babb,  13  111.  483,  484  ;  supra,  n.  26. 

31  Chicago  V.  Kinzie,  49  111.  239,  23.5. 

32  Ilobbins  v.  Kinzie,  45  111.  351,  3.59. 

33  French  it.  Lord,  69  Me.  537,  542  ;  post,  ?§  272,  276. 

34  Kitzmiller  v.  Van  Rensselaer,  10  Ohio  St.  63,  64  ;  post,  5?  272,  276. 

35  Reiff  V.  Horst,  55  Md.  42,  47  ;  ante,  §  262. 

36  Bailey  v.  Litten,  52  Ala.  282,  285 ;  Reiff  v.  Horst,  55  Md.  42,  47  ; 
Miller  t\  Crawfurd,  32  Gratt.  277,  286. 

37  Hiscock  i\  Jaycox,  12  Bank.  Reg.  507. 

38  Bailey  v.  Litten,  52  Ala.  2S2,  285. 

I  272.  Release  of  dower  —  Effect  of.  —  A  married  wo- 
man's release  of  her  iinassigned  dower  cannot  take 
eflect  as  a  g'rant.i  but  operates  only  by  way  of  estop- 
pel ;  2  and  as  an  estoppel  must  be  mutual,^  a  stranger 
to  the  release  cannot  avail  himself  of  it  ;*  it  can  be  set 
up  only  by  one  wlio  claims  title  under  it,^  by  the  hus- 
band's grantee,*  or  some  one  entitled  to  stand  in  his 
shoes  ; '  thus,  when  a  wife  joins  her  husband  in  a  mort- 
gage, only  the  mortgagee  or  one  claiming  under  the 
mortgage,  can  set  up  her  release  of  dower  ;  *  against  all 
others  she  has  her  dower,'  and  if  the  mortgage  is  fore- 
closed after  the  husband's  deatli,  she  has  dower  in  the 
surplus,!^  even  where,  instead  of  foreclosing  a  mort- 
gage, the  property  is  sold  by  the  husband's  assignee 
in  bankruptcy,  and  the  debt   is   paid,  the   purchaser 


§  272  BOWER.  414 

takes  the  property  subject  to  her  dower."  So  when 
she  joins  in  a  lease  she  does  not  aflect  her  rights  in  the 
reversion  or  the  rent  ;^-  nor  does  her  release  to  one  ten- 
ant in  common  affect  her  rights  as  against  the  other 
tenants  in  common.'^  She  is  not,  moreover,  estopped 
from  setting  up  a  subsequent  title  in  herself,'^  or  from 
alleging  her  husband's  fraud. ^^  The  etlect  of  the  re- 
lease is  confined  to  the  property  actually  referred  to;'^ 
and  if  a  mistako  is  made  in  the  description,  the  deed 
Avill  not  be  rectified  as  against  the  Avife.''  Nor  if  she 
joins  with  her  husband  avowedly  to  "  release  her 
dower"  does  the  deed  have  any  effect  as  a  conveyance 
of  her  own  property, >*  even  if  no  property  of  her  hus- 
band's is  referred  to  ;^9  of  course,  the  deed  may  be  so 
drawn  as  to  release  her  dower  and  convey  her  own 
property  also.-"  If  she  release  dower,  the  release  cov- 
ers dower  in  the  same  land  under  a  former  husband.-' 
But  if  she  conveys  ju-operty  as  guardian,-- or  as  admin- 
istratrix,^ she  does  not  release  her  dower;  though  if 
she  convey  in  a  representative  capacity  and  her  indi- 
vidual capacity  also,  her  dower  is  gone.'''*  If  the  deed 
in  which  she  joins  to  release  her  dower  is  set  aside,  or 
for  any  reason  becomes  inoperative  —  as  where  a  mort- 
gage debt  is  paid,'^  or  a  deed  in  fraud  of  creditors  is  set 
aside  by  them,-^  even  when  tlie  fraudulent  deed  was  to 
the  wife  herself  2"  —  she  has  her  dower  as  if  she  had  not 
joined  therein  ;**  but  the  deed  must  really  become  in- 
operative;^ it  is  not  sufficient  if  the  grantee  from 
laches  never  has  had  any  benefit  thereunder.^" 

1  Reiff  I'.  Horst,  5.5  Mil.  4:,  47  ;  ante,  U  -62.  203. 

2  French  v.  I,orfl,  f.')  M'\  57,  r,4L'  ;   Efiflf  v.  llorst,  55  Mil.  42,  47; 
Mallor.v  v.  Honin,  r:  Abb.  Fr.  X.  S.  2.S.),  2<.w  ;  post,  i  410. 

3  Kitzmiller  v.  Van  Rensselaer,  10  Ohio  St.  63,  P4. 

4  Robinson  1'.  Bates,  3  Met.  40 ;  infra,  n.  7. 

5  Mallory  v.  Horan,  12  Abb.  Pr.  N.  S.  289,  295  ;  infra,  n.  7. 

6  Dearborn  v.  Taylor,  18  N.  II.  153,  15S  ;  infra,  n.  7. 


415  KowER.  \  273 

7  Bliilr  v.  Harrison,  11  III.  !»4,3Sfi.  S.  P.,  Bobbins  v.  Kinzio,  4".  111. 
■XA, :»«  ;  Gove  i-.  Catlier,  2.i  111.  6;H.  641 ;  Frt-neh  v.  Cro.sby,  61  Me.  .5iJJ, 
.i(H  ;  Freiicli  c.  Lord,  fi:i  Me.  5:i7,  h\l\  Harriniaii  r.  (^ray,  49  Me.  fi\~, 
•>«;  Llttlefleld  r.  frocker,  .iO  Me.  1H2,  \%K\  Kiibiiisoti  /.  Kates,  .i  Met. 
4(),  4-';  Pixlev  I'.  Bennett,  11  .Mass.  2J8  ;  Pearson  c.  Williams,  ij  Mi.ss. 
64,68;  Harrison  r.  Kldndge,  7  N.  J.  1-.  :«r2,  411  ;  Dearborn  r.  Taylor, 
H  N.  H.  l.>»,  \^  ;  Mallory  v.  Hornn,  12  Ahb.  I*r.  N.  ^s.  iw'.t, •-•H.i ;  Gray  v. 
McC'une,  23  Pa,  St.  447,  451.  Cf/ntra,  Elmdorf  v.  Lockwood,  67  N.  Y. 
;<22,  :i2.5. 

8  niair  v.  Harrison,  11  111.  zm,  Xir> ;  Johnson  v.  Hlnes,  61  Md.  123, 
129  ;  ante,  U  260,  261. 

9  Youns  V.  Tarbell,  37  Me.  609,  51.5 ;  ante,  U  260,  261. 
,    10    Chew  V.  Farmers,  9  Gill,  361,  374  ;  ante,  ?  261. 

11  Bartenbaeh,  11  Bank.  Ueg.  61. 

12  Herbert  t'.  Wren,  7  Cranch,  370  ;  Chase,  1  Bland, 200, 231 ;  17  Am. 
Dec.  277. 

13  White,  16  X.  J.  L.  202,  21.5. 

14  Blair  r.  Harrison,  11  111.  .^S4,.3.S0;  ;jo.«<,  H12 

15  WoodwortU  V.  Paige,  5  Ohio  St.  70,  74. 

16  French  t;.  Lord,  69  Mo.  5.37,  542. 

17  Rieben  v.  F'ranks,  52  Iowa,  642,  643;  Davenport  v.  Sovll.  6  Ohio 
St.  451,  466  ;  ante,  i  270. 

18  Hnghes  v.  Wilkinson,  21  Ala.  296,  300;  Kavmond  v.  Holden,  2 
Cu«h.  2W,  270;  McDaniel  v.  Priest,  12  Mo.  .544,  .>4fi  ;  Flag?  v.  Bean,  25 
N.  H.  It,  6'i;  Foster  v.  Dennison,  9  Ohio,  121,  125;  Mavo  v.  Foster,  2 
McCord  Ch.  137. 

19  Flags  V.  Bean,  25  N.  H.  49,  63. 

20  Gregory,  16  Ohio  .St.  560,  5M. 

21  rsherr.  Richardson,  29  Me.  415,  417. 

22  Jones  v.  llollopeter,  10  Serg.  &  U.  326,  .328. 

23  Shiirtz  ?•.  Thomas,  8  Pa.  St.  &59,  362.  See  Kitchie  v.  Putnam,  13 
Wend.  524,  526. 

24  Churchill  v.  Be4>,  66  Ga.  C21,  6:52. 

25  Mallory  v.  lloran,  12  Abb.  Pr.  X.  R.  289,  296. 

26  Summers  v.  Babb,  13  111.  4«,  484  ;  infra,  ii.  28. 

27  Richardson  ji.  Wyman,  62  Me.  280, 283. 

28  Hoppin,  96  111.  265,  271,  272;  Morton  v.  Noble,  .57  111.  176,  179; 
McKee  x.  Brown,  4:!  III.  IIO  ;  r;.,ve  v.  Catlier,  23  III.  634,  641 ;  Lockett 
n  James,  8  Bush,  28,  31  ;  lliclianlson  )■.  Wvriiaii,  62  Me.  2^0,  284  ;  Rob- 
inson V.  Bates.  3  Mi't.  40  ;  Sthisii'i  v.  Siini'ur,  9  M:vss.  Mi  ;  6  Am.  Dec. 
49;  I»inson  r.  Williams,  23  Miss.  64,  <;s  ;  Frev  r.  liovlau,  23  N.  .1.  E(i. 
90;  Elmdorf  r.  Lockwood,  57  X.  Y.  .322,  ;i25;  Mallorv  v.  Horan,  12 
Abb.  Pr.  X.  S.  289,  216  :  Clowes  ^;.  Dickenson,  5  Johns".  Ch.  2:{5,  246; 
Ridgway  v.  Masting  23  Ohio  St.  294,  296 ;  Bickard  v.  Talbird,  Rice 
Eq.  158. 

29  Iloppin,  96  III.  26.5,  271,  272. 

30  Morton  v.  Xoble,  .57  111.  176,  179 

'i  273.  Jointure,  legal  and  oquitablo. — Jointnro  is  toch- 
iiicalh'^  .such  a  .settlement  on  a  wife  as  bars  licr  of  her 


g  273  DOWER.  41(3 

dower  under  the  statute  of  uses,'  for  by  the  early  com- 
mon law  dower  could  not  be  barred  by  any  collateral 
satisfaction.-  The  settlement  was  so  called  because 
usually  made  upon  the  husband  and  wife  jointly  dur- 
ing coverture,  and  on  her  after  her  husband's  death.* 
The  word  when  used  in  a  statute  without  qualification 
means  legal  jointure  under  the  above-named  statute ;  ^ 
but  it  is  commonly  used  at  present  to  mean  any  pro- 
vision for  a  Avife  in  lieu  of  her  dower .&  A  legal  jointure 
is  such  a  provision  as  under  the  statute  of  uses  or  other 
statute  bars  her  dower ;  ^  an  equitable  jointure  is  .sucli 
a  proAdsion  as  puts  her  on  her  election  to  take  it  or 
dower.*'  Antenuptial  contracts  between  the  husband 
and  wife,  in  which  the  wife  agrees  to  give  up  her 
dower,  have  also  been  called  equitable  jointures;*  but 
such  contracts  stand  on  a  different  footing,  and  are  ab- 
solutely' binding,  if  made  between  adults,^  and  void- 
able only  if  the  woman  were  an  infant.'*  To  a  strict 
legal  jointure  under  the  statute  of  uses,  which  is  in 
force  in  tliis  country  as  a  part  of  the  common  law,'^  so 
far  as  consistent  with  the  modem  statutes,'^  the  follow- 
ing are  the  requisites  :'^  (1)  Tlie  provision  must  consist 
in  an  estate  or  interest  in  land  ;  '*  (2)  it  must  take  effect, 
in  possession  or  profit,  immediately  from  the  death  of 
the  husband ;  '^  (3)  it  must  be  for  the  wife's  life,  at 
least;'®  (4)  it  must  be  limited  to  the  wife  herself,  and 
not  in  trust  for  her;"  (5)  it  must  be  made  in  satisfac- 
tion of  her  whole  dower,'*  and  must  be  so  expressed 
in  the  deed;'^  ((J)  it  must  be  a  reasonable  and  compe- 
tent provision  for  the  wife's  livelihood;™  (7)  it  must 
be  made  before  marriage.^'  Any  other  provision  made 
for  a  wife  expresslj'^  in  lieu  of  dower  ^^  will,  if  she  ac- 
cepts it,  bar  her  of  dower  in  equity,^  independently  of 
statute;^*  it  puts  her  to  an  election.^  In  most  of  the 
States  statutes  provide  in  what  cases  a  wife  shall  be  ab- 


417  DOWER.  ?  274 

solutely  barred  by  a  proAnsion  in  lieu  of  dower,  and  in 
what  cases  she  may  elect.-^^  If,  when  the  wife  is  abso- 
lutely barred  she  conveys  away  jointly  with  her  hus- 
band her  jointure  lands,"  she  is;  nevertheless  barred  of 
her  dower ;  but  if  she  has  the  right  of  election  she  may 
claim  her  dower  all  the  same.^*  If  she  is  evicted  of 
either  kind®  of  jointure,  she  may  be  endowed  of  so 
much  of  the  remainder  of  her  husband's  lands  as  may 
be  necessar^'^  to  make  up  her  loss,^"  provided  that  she 
does  not  get  more  altogether  than  she  would  have  had 
had  she  taken  dower  at  first  ;^i  and  she  may  be  so  en- 
dowed even  as  against  her  husband's  alienee.^^  A 
jointure,  unlike  dower  after  assignment,^^  is  not  a  con- 
tinuance of  the  husband's  estate  ;**  the  wife  takes  as  a 
purchaser,'^  and  is  not  entitled  to  the  crops  which  were 
soA\Ti  at  the  time  of  his  death.^* 

1  27  Henry  VIIL  ch.  10,  g?  6-9  ;  Alex.  Brit.  Stat.  300, 301 ;  2  Scrlbner 
Dow.  -Wi 

2  Vernon,  4  Co.  1 ;  Vincent  r.  Spooner,  2  Cush.  467,  473 ;  Hastings 
V.  Dickinson,  7  Mass.  I-t;?  ;  5  Am.  Dec.  34. 

3  Drury,  WUm.  1S5, 186  ;  Vernon,  4  Co.  1  6. 

4  Vance,  21  Me.  36t 

5  Tevis  t'.  McCreary,  3  Met.  (Ky.)  151. 

6  Dniry,  3  Brown  Pari.  C.  492 ;  Wilm.  177. 

7  Ha-stlngs  i\  Dickinson,  7  Mass.  153,  155  ;  5  Am.  Dec.  34. 

8  Dyke  v.  Rendall,  13  Eng.  L.  &  Eq.  404,  411 ;  2  DeGex,  M.  &  G.  209. 

9  Caruthers,  4  Bro.  C.  C.  513 ;  ante,  i  206. 

10  McCartee  v.  TeUer,  2  Paige,  511,556,559;  8  Wend.  207;  Stewart 
M.  *  D.  ?  37. 

11  Alex.  Brit.  Stat.  300,  301 ;  ante,  ?  6, 

12  Vance,  21  Me.  3G4  ;  ant^.,  ?  G. 

13  Co.  Litt.  3fi  &  ;  T.everin?  ?•.  Hughe,  2  Md.  Ch.  81 ;  Hastings  v 
Dickinson,  7  Mass.  153 ;  5  Am.  Dec.  34. 

14  Gibson,  15  Mass.  106  ;  8  Am.  Dec.  94  ;  Hastings  v.  Dickinson.  7 
Mass.  153;  5  Am.  Dec.  34  ;  Vance,  21  Me.  364  ;  (Jelzer,  1  Bail.  Eq  3S7 ; 
Ball,  3  Muni  279 ;  2  Scribner  Dow.  394. 

15  Vernon,  4  Co.  2  a  ;  Caruthers,  4  Bro.  C.  C.  500.  513  ;  Vance,  21 
Me.  364;  Gibson,  15  Miiss.  106;  8  Am.  Dec.  94;  Crain  v.  Cavana.  63 
Barb.  410 ;  2  Scribner  Dow.  395. 

16  Vernon,  4  Co.  2  ft  ;  McCartee  v.  Teller,  2  Paige.  511,  500  ;  Gelzer, 
1  Bail.  Eq.  387 ;  2  Scribner  Dow.  397. 

17  Hervey,  1  Atk.  561 ;  Co.  Litt.  36  6  ;  2  Scribner  Dow.  399. 


§274  DOWER.  418 

18  Bubicr  v.  Roberts,  49  Me.  460,  46o. 

19  Vernon,  4  Co.  3  a  ;  Tinney,  3  Atk.  8  ;  Charles  i'.  Andrews,  6 
Mod.  152  ;  Caruthers,  4  Bro.  C.  C.  500  ;  Garthshore  v.  Chalie,  10  Ves. 
Jr.  1,  20;  Green  v.  Porter,  7  Port.  19;  Tevis  v.  McCrearv,  3  Met.  (Kv.) 
151 ;  Worsley,  IB  Mon.  B.  4.5.5,  4.59  ;  Bnbier  v.  Roberts,  49  Me.  4fiO,  4fi5  ; 
Perryman,  1!)  Mo.  469;  Swaine  ik  Ferine,  5  Johns.  Ch.  48'2;  9  Am. 
Dec.  318;  Liles  v.  Fleming,  1  Dev.  Eq.  185;  infra,  n.  22;  post  ?  274. 
But  see  Ambler  v.  Norton,  4  Hen.  &  M.  23. 

20  2  Scribner  Dow.  404,  428. 

21  Martin,2r)AIa.  86  ;  Rowe  r.  Hamilton,  3  Me.  63  ;  Grain  ?'.  Cavana, 
36  Barb.  410  ;  Townsend,  2  8and.  711  ;  Walsh  v.  Kelly,  34  Pa.  St.  84. 

22  Worsley,  16  Mon.  B.  455,  459 ;  stipra,  n.  19 ;  ])ost,  i  274 

23  Dvke  r.  Rendall,  13  Ens.  h.  &  Eq.  404,  411  ;  2  DeGex,  M.  &  G. 
20:) ;  Blaekniore,  16  Ala.  (^Xi ;  "Farrow,  1  Del.  Ch.  4.57  ;  Raines  v.  Cor- 
bln,  24  Ga.  1>5  ;  ( iarrurd,  7  Bush,  436  ;  Tevis  >\  SlcCrcarv,  3  Mot.  (K y.) 
151  ;  Wentwcirtli,  69  Me.  247  ;  Levering  v.  Hughr,  2  .Mil.  Ch.  81  ;  Hast- 
ings V.  Iiickhison,  7  Mass.  1.53,  1.55  ;  5  Am.  Dec  34;  Gib.son,  15  Mass. 
156;' 8  Am.  Dec.  94;  McCartee  v.  Teller,  2  Paige,  511  ;  8  Wend.  267; 
Tisdale  v.  .Tones,  38  Barb.  .523;  Grogan  v.  Garrison.  27  Ohio  St.  50; 
Jones,  62  Pa.  .St.  324:  Gangwere,  14  Pa.  8t.  417;  Rudolph,  10  Pa.  St. 
34;  Rose  v.  Reynolds,  1  Swan,  446;  Dacy  v.  Anderson,  1  Swan,  445; 
Parham,  6  Iluniph.  287  ;  pout,  H  274,  27.5. 

24  Logan  v.  IMiillips,  18  Mo.  22  ;  Johnson,  23  Mo.  561 ;  30  Mo.  72. 

25  Co.  Litt.  36  6  ;  post,  H  274,  275. 

26  Rev.  Stats,  as  follows :  Ark.  1874.  ??  2218-2224  ;  Conn.  1875.  pp.  .376, 
377  ;  Conn.  Acts,  1877,  p.  211,  ?  4  ;  Del.  1874,  p.  .5.33 ;  HI.  1880,  p.  426  ;  Ind. 
1881,  §2.500;  Kv.  1881,  p.  530  ;  Me.  1871,  p.  7.57;  Md.  1878,  art.  .50,  ?  226  ; 
Mass.  1882,  p.  711  ;  Mich.  1882,  ??  .5746-.5749  ;  Mo.  1879,  ??  2201,  2202  ;  N.  J. 
1877,  p.  3-22;  N.  Y.  1882,  pp.  2197,  2198;  Ohio  WHO,  §4189;  Oreg.  >S74, 
p.  .586 ;  R.  I.  18S2,  p.  640  ;  S.  C.  18S2,  p.  5:30  ;  Va.  1873,  p.  854  ;  Vt.  1880, 
i  2219  ;  Wis.  1879,  §§  2169-2172. 

27  Co.  Litt.  36  6  ;  Dyer,  3.58  6. 

28  1  Greenl.  Cruise,  208  ;  Co.  Litt.  36  b. 

29  Gervoye,  Moore  C.  P.  717;  Beard  v.  Nutthall,  1  Vern.  427; 
Garrard,  7  Bush,  436  ;  Hastings  v.  Dickinson,  7  Mass.  153, 155  ;  .5  Am. 
Dec.  34 ;  Gibson,  15  Mass.  106,  111 ;  8  Am.  Dec.  94. 

30  Hastings  r.  Dickinson.  7  Mass.  1.53,  1.55  ;  5  Am.  Dec.  34  ;  Comden 
r.  Jones,  23  N.  J  Eq.  171  ;  Pierce,  9  Hun,  M  ;  St.  Clair  v.  Williams,  7 
Ohio,  110  ;  30  Am.  Dec.  liM  ;  Ambler  v.  Norton,  4  Hen.  &  M.  23. 

31  Beard  v.  Nutthall,  1  Vern.  427  ;  Tew  v.  Winterton,  3  Bro.  C.  C. 
489. 

.32    Mannsfield,  Co.  Litt.  .33  a,  n.  8  ;  1  Greenl.  Cruise,  200. 

a3    Discussed  ante,  §  264. 

.34    Fisher  v.  Forbes,  9  Vin.  Abr.  .373. 

35  See  Campion  v.  Cotton,  17  Ves.  267  ;  Sterrv  v.  Arden,  1  Johns. 
Ch.  271;  12  Johns.  536;  7  Am.  Dec.  348;  Herring  v.  Wickham,  29 
Gratt.  628  ;  Jones,  62  Pa.  St.  324. 

36  Fisher  v.  Forbes,  9  Vin.  Abr.  .37.3. 

I  274.  Equitable  jointure  —  Devise  in  lieu  of  dower.  —  It 
il  a  rule  euforeod  in  equity  that  one  cannot  accojit  the 
benefit.s  under  an  in.strument,  and   at  the  .same  time 


419  DOWER.  §274 

defeat  its  provisions,  so  that  if  A  transfers  to  B  certain 
lands,  and  by  tlie  same  instrument  transfers  to  C  cer- 
tain lands  belonging  to  B,  B  must  let  his  own  lands  go 
to  C  if  he  accepts  the  lands  transferred  to  him  by  A ;  he 
cannot  have  both,  he  must  clioose  between  them  —  he  is 
put  to  an  election.!  Tliis  rule  applies  to  dower  as  well 
as  to  other  estates,^  and  to  widows  as  well  as  to  other 
persons  ;*  and  a  widow  cannot  have  her  dower  and  also 
a  provision  made  for  her  in  lieu  thereof  by  her  hus- 
band's deed  *  or  will.^  For  although  the  mass  of  cases 
have  arisen  with  respect  to  provisions  in  wills,  there  is 
nothing  to  prevent  the  same  rules,  so  far  as  tliej' depend 
on  tlie  unwritten  law  and  not  on  statutes,  from  apply- 
ing equally  to  deeds.^  Tlie  provision  must  be  expressly 
in  lieu  of  dower,^  or  the  instrument  must  make  a  dis- 
position of  some  part  of  the  maimer's  estate  wliicli  is 
clearly  inconsistent  with  the  existence  of  dower  there- 
in,8  so  that  in  claiming  dower  the  widow  would  defeat, 
interrupt,  or  disappoint,  some  provision  in  the  instru- 
ment.* No  teclmical  language  is  necessary,!*)  but  it  has 
been  found  diflficult  to  determine  what  provisions  in  a 
will  are  inconsistent  with  dower."  A  devise  of  "all 
ni}'  estates"  would  not  be,'-  for  dower  is  the  wife's 
estate  and  not  the  husband's  ;  '^  it  is  an  encumbrance  on 
his  property.'*  So  that  by  leaving  a  wife  a  part  of  his 
property  and  disposing  of  tlie  I'est  to  others,  her  hus- 
band does  not  necessarily  put  her  to  an  election,  but  she 
takes  the  devise  and  dower  in  the  balance  ;  '*  nor  does 
a  devise  to  her  of  all  her  husband's  property  prevent 
her  from  holding  part  as  dower  and  part  under  the 
devise  ;  "^  nor  does  a  devise  of  all  the  property  to  trust- 
ees to  sell  and  give  her  part  of  the  proceeds  put  her  to 
an  election  ; "  iioi  does  an  annuity  charged  on  the  land, 
unless  the  land,  if  subjected  to  dower,  is  not  sufficient 
to  pay  the  annuity.'^    But  if  such  a  disjiosition  of  the 


I  274  DowicR.  420 

estate  is  made  as  is  inconsistent  with  tlie  existence  of 
dower  tlierein,  slie  must  elect ;  as  wliere  trustees  are 
directed  to  lease  the  whole  of  the  land  in  possession  ;^^ 
so,  if  tlie  instrument  shows  clearly  his  intention  that 
she  should  have  nothing  excepting  the  provisions  of  the 
will ;  '^^  as  where  he  leaves  her  property  during  her 
widowhood  only,^^  or  equally  with  others.^'^  gut  tj^e 
widow  is  favored,'-^  and  the  intent  must  be  clear  to  ex- 
clude her  ;  2'  and  it  must  be  ascertained  from  the  instru- 
naent,  for,  except  in  Virginia,®  parol  evidence  thereof 
is  not  admissable.^^  Such  were  the  rules  at  common 
law,  but  in  most  States  they  have  been  changed  by 
statute, 2' and  any  provision,  generally  of  realty,*  in  a 
will  for  a  wife,  is  presumed  to  have  been  intended  as  in 
lieu  of  dower,  unless  a  contrary  intent  plainly  appears 
from  the  will  itself,^  and  the  Avidow  is  required  to  elect 
within  a  specified  time  whether  she  will  take  the  pro- 
visions in  tlie  will  or  her  dower.^"  But  a  will  which 
contains  no  provision  in  her  favor  does  not  put  her  to 
an  election,3i  nor  does  a  provision  in  a  will  in  lieu  of 
dower  require  her  to  elect  as  to  lands  of  which  the  hus- 
band dies  intestate,^^  for  to  take  dower  in  such  lands 
would  not  affect  the  other  provisions  in  the  instru- 
ment;^^ and  the  same  applies  to  lands  of  the  husband's 
sold  by  him,^'  or  in  execution  against  him,^^  during 
coverture ;  nor  does  a  devise  to  her  of  lands  in  one 
State  require  her  to  elect  as  to  lands  in  another  State,"^ 
though  this  seems  to  be  bad  law.^'  The  statutes  are 
construed  as  favorably  as  possible  to  the  widow,  and 
where  a  devise  to  her  requires  her  to  elect,  although  not 
expressed  to  be  in  lieu  of  dower,  a  devise  in  trust  for 
her  will  not  have  the  same  effect.^^  The  statutes  of  the 
different  States,  liowever,  differ  in  many  and  minute 
ways,  and  should  in  all  cases  be  carefully  con- 
sulted. 


421  Dowr.R.  2  274 

1  Adams  Equity  02,  221,  notes  ;  2  Scribner  Dow.  -!10 ;  1  Lead.  Cas. 
Eq.  3:j. 

2  Eirniiiigham  r.  Kirwan,  2  Schoales  &  T,.  4 !  1,  4o0. 

3  Dixon  V.  itcCue,  1-4  Gratt.  540,  543. 

4  Birmingham  r.  Kirwan,  2  Schoales  <fc  L.  4+4,  4il ;  Parhara,  6 
JIumpk.  267,  2i)~  ;  1  Bish.  M.  W.  38;J ;  ante,  §  273. 

5  Adsit,  2  Johns.  Ch.  44S,  459  ;  7  Am.  Doc.  5":) ;  cases  cited  infra. 

6  1  Bish.  M.  W.  i  383  ;  ante,  \  273. 

7  U.  S.  V.  Duncan,  4  McLean,  93, 101 ;  infra,  n.  8. 

8  Blrjnlngham  v.  Kirwan,  2  Schoales  &  L.  4 14,  452  ;  U.  S.  v.  Da;i- 
can,  4  McLean,  !t,i,  101 ;  Green,  7  Port,  l.i ;  Apporso!i  v.  Bolton,  29  A  r.c. 
418,  428;  Lord,  23  Conn.  327,  331  ;  Ailing  v.  Chatlichl,  42  Conn.  27;.; 
Worthen  1).  Pearson,  33  Ga.  385,  387  ;  Tooke  v.  Hardeman,  7  Ga.  20; 
Ostrander  v.  Spickard,  8  Elackf.  227  ;  Kelly  v.  Stinson,  8  Blackf.  387  ; 
Clarke  v.  Griliith,  4  Iowa,  405;  Potter  v.  Worley,  57  Ga.  66,  67; 
Van  Guilder  v.  Justice,  56  Iowa,  63:);  Kyne,  48  Iowa,  21;  Wil- 
son V.  Cox,  49  Miss.  538,  54  4;  Copp  v.  Hensev,  31  N.  H.  317; 
C  olgate,  23  N.  J.  Eq.  372,  378  ;  Freedla:;d  v.  MandervUle,  28  N.  J.  Eq. 
6.J.) ;  Van  Arsdnle,  26  N.  J.  L.  407, 410  ;  Stewart,  31  N.  J.  Eq.  398  ;  Adsit, 
2  Johns.  Ch.  448,  459  ;  7  Am.  Dec.  519  ;  Jackson  v.  Churchill,  7  Cowen, 
2^7;  17  Am.  Dec.  514;  Bets,  4  Abb.  N.  G.  317;  Smith  v.  Kniskern,  4 
Johns.  Ch.  9  ;  Wood, 5  Paige,  506  ;  28  Am.  Dec.  451 ;  Sandford  v.  Jack- 
son. 10  Paige,  268  ;  Havens,  1  Sand.  Ch.  324 ;  Tobias  v.  Ketehum,  36 
Barb.  479  ;  32  N.  Y.  319  ;  Lingart  v.  Eipley,  19  Ohio  St.  24 ;  Sample,  2 
Ycates,  433  ;  Allen,  2  Pa.  311 ;  Webb  v.  Evans,  \  Binu.  5Gj  ;  Chapin  v. 
Hill,  1  R.  I.  446;  Gordon  v.  Stevens,  2  Hill,  46;  27  Am.  Dec.  4-;5; 
Brown  v.  Caldwell,  1  Spear  Eq.  322  ;  Cun'-.innrhani  r.  Shannon,  4 
Bich.  Eq.  135;  Dixon  v.  McCue,  14  Gratt.  540,  54.);  Higgiubotham  v 
Coruwell,  8  Gratt.  83,  85 ;  56  Am.  Dec.  1"0. 

9  Cornell  v.  Ham,  2  Clarke,  552,  558. 

10  Lord,  23  Conn.  327,  331. 

11  See  collected  cases  in  1  Lead.  Cas.  Eq.  310,  et  se.q. 

12  Sandford  v.  Jackson,  10  Paige,  ?G3,  272, 270 ;  Baxter  v.  Bowyer,  19 
0:iio  St.  490,  491. 

13  Dixon  r.  McCue,  14  Gratt.  540,  o:X 

14  Barnett  v.  Gaines,  8  Ala.  373,  374  ;  ante,  U  262,  263. 

15  Birmingham  t>.  Kirwan,  2  Schoales  &L.  444,452  ;  Colgate, 23  N.  J, 
Eq.  372,  379.  See  Lawrence,  2  Vern.  365  ;  3  Brov.n  P..rl.  C.  4.s3 ;  Lemon, 
8  Vin.  Abr.  "  Devise,"  p.  3G6,  pi.  45;  Holdich,2  Younge  &  C.  18  ;  Bend- 
ing, 3  Kaj'  &  J.  257  ;  Kellj^  v.  Stinson,  8  Blac'.if.  357 ;  Rahtbone  r.  Dyck- 
man,  3  Paige,  9  ;  Fuller  r.  Yat?s,  8  Paige,  325  ;  Jackson  v.  Churchill 
77  Cowen,  287;  17  Am.  Dec.  514  ;  Havens,  1  Sand.  Ch.  324;  Mills,  28 
Barb.  454;  Lingart  v.  Riplev,  19  Ohio  St.  24;  Baxter  r.  Bowver,  19 
Ohio  St.  490,  4111:  Webb  v.  Evans,  1  Binn.  o(i5;  Brown  ?'.  Caldwell,  1 
Spears  Eq.  322;  Cunningham  v.  Shannon,  4  Rich.  Eq.  135. 

16  Church  v.  Bull,  2  Denio,  430  ;  5  Hill,  206  ;  43  Am.  Dec.  754  ;  Lewis 
r.  Smith,  5  Seld.  502;  11  Barb.  152;  Wis 'lev  v.  Findla.v,  3  Rand.  361, 
372  ;  15  Am.  Dec.  712.    But  see  Stark  v.  llunton,  1  N.  J.  Eq.  216. 

17  Ellis  1'.  Lewis,  3  Hare,  310  ;  French  v.  Davies,2  Ves.  Jr.  572  ;  Gib- 
son, 1  Drew.  42;  12  Eng.  L.  &  Eq.  34);  Woiid,  5  P:iige,  596;  28  Am. 
Dec.  451  ;  Gordon  i-.  Stevens,  2  TliU  Ch.  46  ;  27  Am.  D-^c.  445.  But  s-e 
Colgate,  23  X.  J.  Eq.  372, 361 ;  Savage  v.  Burnham,  17  N.  Y.  561  ;  Hatch 
V.  Bassett,  52  N.  Y.  359. 

H.  &  W.-C6 


g  274  .  DOWER.  422 

18  Pearson,  1  Bro.  C.  C.  292.    See  Foster  v.  Cook,  3  Bro.  C.  C.  347 ; 

Dawson  v.  Bell,  1  Keen,  761,  765  ;  Arnold  v.  Hempstead,  2  Eden,  236; 
Bradley  I'.  Dixon,  3  Russ.  198;  Druce  v.  Dcnnisoa,  6  Ves.  Jr.  385; 
Greatorex  v.  Carey,  6  Ves.  Jr.  615  ;  Worthen  v.  Pearson,  33  Ga.  ifSo,  387. 

19  Parker  v.  Sowerbv,  1  Drew.  488 ;  27  Eng.  L.  <fc  Eq.  145.  Consult 
Miall  V.  Brain,  4  Madd.  119 ;  O'Hara  v.  Chaine,  1  Jones  &  L.  6R2 ;  Pep- 
per V.  Dixon,  17  Sim.  200 ;  Atliing  v.  Chatfleld,  42  Conn.  2';6 ;  Worthen 
V.  Pearson ,  33  Ga.  3So,  3'*7  ;  Van  Guilder  r.  Justice,  57  Iowa,  GG'J  ;  Tobias 
V.  Ketchum,  32  N.  Y.  319  ;  1  Lead.  Cas.  Eq..524,  561. 

20  See  1  Lead.  Cas.  Eq.  300,  524,  561. 

21  Wilson?'.  Hayne,  1  Cheves  Eq.  37.  See  Phillips' r.  Medbury,  7 
Conn.  568  ;  Lord,  23  Conn.  327  ;  Collins  v.  Wood,  63  III.  285  ;  Smith  r. 
Bone,  7  Bush,  367  ;  Stark  v.  Hunton.  1  N.  J.  Eq.  216  ;  Lingart  v.  Ship- 
lev,  19  Ohio  St.  24  ;  Taylor  v.  Bnrmiiigham,  29  Pa.  St.  308  ;  Hamilton 
ti.'Buckwalter,  2  Yeates,  3s!) ;  1  Am.  Dec.  350;  Creacroft  v.  Dillo,3 
Yeates,79;  Caston,2I{ich.  Eq.  1.  But  see  Sully  ?'.  Nehorffill,  "0  Iowa, 
339  ;  Sandford  r.  Jackson,  10  Paige,  266  ;  Church  v.  Bull.  2  Denio,  430 ; 
53  Am.  Dec.  754 ;  Lewis  v.  Smith,  5  Seld.  502  ;  Lasher,  13  Barb.  106  ; 
Webb  V.  Evans,  1  Binn.  563. 

22  Chalmers  v.  Staril,  2  Ves.  &  B.  222 ;  Jackson  v.  Robinson,  Jacob, 
503  ;  Bailey  v.  Bovce,  4  Strob.  Eq.  84  ;  Carroll,  20  Tex,  731  ;  Higsi:'- 
botham  v.  Cornwell,  8  Gratt.  83,  88 ;  56  Am,  Dec.  130. 

'23    Hardy  v.  Scales,  54  Wis.  452,  455  ;  ante,  ?  245. 

24  Dixon  v.  McCue,  14  Gratt.  540,  543. 

25  Dixon  v.  McCue,  14  Gratt.  540,  649,  by  statute, 

26  Stratton  v.  Best,  1  Ves.  Sr.  285  ;  Timber  Lake, 5  Dana, SIS  ;  Hall, 
8  Rich.  407  ;  Chapin  v.  Hill,  1  R.  I.  440  ;  Dixon  v.  McCue,  14  Gratt.  WO, 
MS,  &49. 

27  Wilson  V.  Cox,  49  Miss.  538,  544  ;  Jennings,  21  Ohio  St.  56,  76  ; 
Hardy  v.  Scales,  54  SVis.  452,  455. 

28  XJ.  S.  V.  Duncan,  7  McLean,  00, 102  ;  Van  Arsdale,  26  N.  J.  L.  4(M, 
411;  Wiseley  v.  Fiudlav,  3  Rand.  361,  372;  15  Am.  Dec.  712.  S<'e 
Chandler  I'.  Woodward, . 3  Har.  (DeL)428, 45;i ;  Jennings  r.  Smith,  29  III. 
116  ;  Ostrander?!.  Spickard,  8  Blackf.  227 ;  Shaw,  2  Dana.  "41  ;  Fulton, 
30  Miss.  586  ;  Wilson  j>.  CoXe,  49  Mii?s.  538  ;  Hall,  S  Uich.  407  ;  Whilden, 
Riley,  205.    Compare  Norris  v.  Clark,  10  N.  J.  Eq.  ol. 

29  See  3  and  4  Wm.  IV.  ch.  105 ;  Ala.  Code,  1876,  ?  2292  ;  Conn.  H.  S. 
1875,  p.  377,  I  4  ;  Del.  Dig.  1874,  p.  5:J4,  ^  5 ;  Fla.  Dig.  1881,  p.  47.">,  {  1  ;  LI. 
R.  S.  1880,  p.  426,  (S  10  ;  Ind.  R.  S.  18S1,  i  2.505  ;  Kv.  R.  S.  1881,  p.  372, 
?  112;  Me.  R.  8.  1871,  p.  757,  i  10;  Md.  R.  C.  1878,  p.  46.5,  ?|  227 -2::0. 
Mass.  P.  S.  1882,  p.  750,  g  18  ;  Mich.  R.  S.  1882,  §  5749 ;  Mo.  R.  S.  1S79, 
a  2199;  N.  J.  Rev.  1877,  p.  322,  ?  16 ;  N.  C.  R.  S.  1S73.  p.  839,  J  2 ;  Ohio 
R.  S.  1880,  ?  5963  ;  Oreg.  R.  S.  1S74,  p.  5S6,  J  I"* ;  Ba.  Dig.  1873,  p.  529,  i  4  ; 
Tenn.  R.  S.  1871,  §  2404  ;  Wis.  R.  S.  1878,  J  2171. 

30  Discussed  poi^  §  275. 

31  Martin,  S5  Ala.  560.  566 ;  Daniel,  4  Dana,  361 ;  Drummond,  40  Mp, 
85,  39  ;  Roberts,  34  Miss.  322.  See  McLaren  r.  Clarlv,  62  Ga.  lOii  ; 
Simonton  v.  Houston,  73  N.  C.  408.    Contra,  Lewis,  7  Ired.  72. 

32  Hall,  2  McCord  Ch.  269,  299,  301.  See  Van  Arsdale,  26  N.  J.  L. 
404,  410 ;  Hardy  v.  Scales,  54  Wis.  452,  455. 

33  Which  is  the  ground  of  election,  supra,  n.  1. 

34  Braxton  v.  Freeman,  6  Rich.  35,  36  ;  57  Am.  Dec.  773  ;  Hlggln- 
botham  v.  Cornwell,  8  Gratt.  83,  85  ;  56  Am.  Dec.  i:;0.  S.  P.,  Wi.^t- 
brook  V.  Vanderburg,  .S6  Mich.  30  ;  Barland  v.  Ki'-hols,  12  P.'x.  St.  3k  ; 
Gray  v.  McCune,  23  Pa.  St.  447.     Contra,  Haynie  v.  L'ickens,  68  111. 


423  POWER.  g  275 

267,  2RS  ;  Ravlps  i-.  Corbin,  24  Ga.  ISo;  Allen  v.  Bay.  12  Me.  i;H  ;  Steele 
V.  Fisher,  1  Eihv.  Ch.  4H5. 

35  Corriell  v.  Ham,  2  Clarke,  5o2,  557. 

36  Van  Arsdale,  26  N.  J.  I,.  404,  4U  ;  Wilson  v.  Cox,  4f)  Miss.  536,  .546. 
See  Apperson  r.  Bolton,  2J  Arte.  418,  42S ;  Jennings,  21  Ohio  St.  56,  76. 

37  Consult  also  post,  i  27.5. 

38  Van  Arsdale,  26  N.  J.  L.  404,  40:). 

g  275.  Widow's  election. —  If  a  husband  has  exchanged 
soine  of  his  lands  for  others,  his  widow  cannot  have 
dower  both  in  the  lands  exchanged  and  in  the  lands 
received  in  exchange,  she  must  elect. ^  By  the  statute 
of  uses,  a  jointure  made  during  coverture  on  the  wife 
in  lieu  of  dower,  jjut  her  to  an  election  ;2  and  this  is 
true  of  any  such  provision  which  is  not  a  legal  joint- 
ure;^ and  it  applies  especially  to  devises  in  lieu  of 
dower.*  Generally,  independently  of  statute,  the  elec- 
tion of  the  widow — for  an  election  cannot  be  made  dur- 
ing coverture' —  is,  if  not  expressed,  implied  from  an 
entry  upon  the  lands  or  a  suit  for  dower,^  or  from  the 
use  and  enjoyment  by  the  widow  of  the  provisions 
under  the  will.'  But  the  implication  from  apparent 
acquiescence  in  the  provisions  of  the  will  is  always  re- 
buttable, the  longest  acquiescence  seems  not  to  be  con- 
clusive ;  ^  it  may  be  shown,  for  example,  that  the  widow 
held  the  property  by  the  consent  of  the  heirs  and  not 
in  lier  own  right  ;9  or  that  she  really  exercised  no 
elioice,  either  because  she  did  not  know  that  there 
were  two  estates  to  choose  between, i"  or  because  she 
was  deceived,'!  or  mistaken,^''  or  uninformed'^  as  to 
their  respective  values.  But  as  to  devises  in  lieu  of 
dower,  which  have  given  rise  to  most  of  the  cases  on 
this  subject,  it  is  nearly  everywhere  provided  by  stat- 
ute how  and  within  what  time  the  widow  shall  elect.'* 
In  New  York,  if  she  does  not  enter  on  her  dower  lands 
or  commence  proceedings  for  dower  within  one  year 
after  her  husband's  death,  she  elects  to  take  under  the 


?  275  DOWER.  -124 

■will.'*  In  Mississippi  the  time  begins  to  run  from  the 
date  of  probate,'^  still  she  may  renounce  before  pro- 
bate,^"  and  is  bound  by  a  defective  probate  in  which 
she  has  acquiesced.'^  In  Delaware  she  must  liave  no- 
tice before  she  is  bound  to  elect,  which  is  not  tlie  rule 
independently  of  express  provision. '*  In  Indiana  no 
time  is  fixed,  and  she  miay  elect  without  restriction  of 
time,  as  at  common  law.-''  In  Maryland  a  written  re- 
nunciation must  be  filed  %\ithin  six  months  after  the 
husband's  death.^  In  Missouri  the  renunciation  must 
be  acknowledged  as  a  deed.'^  In  Ohio  she  must  be 
called  before  the  judge  and  have  the  matter  explained 
to  her.^  In  Arkansas  she  must  make  a  regular  convey- 
ance to  the  husband's  laeirs.^^  Taking  and  using  the 
property  under  the  will  is  not  an  election  if  she  re- 
nounce the  A\ill  wthin  the  limited  tlme,^  proAaded 
that  she  return  the  devise,*  and  it  seems  that  she  be 
not  estopped  by  the  intervention  of  riglits  of  third  par- 
ties.^ So,  she  may  qualify  as  executrix  Avithout  de- 
s;:roying  her  right  to  renounce  the  Avill.^  If  a  particular 
mode  of  election  is  specified,  as  by  filing  a  renunciation 
of  tlie  will,  anotlier  will  not  take  its  place,  as  suing  for 
dower.®  And  few  excuses  will  prevail,  if  tlie  time  for 
renunciation  lias  been  allowed  to  go  by;3o  thus  it  is 
not  an  excuse  that  the  executor  gave  erroneous  infor- 
mation as  to  the  time  for  filing  the  renunciation;^*  or 
tliat  she  was  a  non-resident  ;^'-  or  that  slie  did  not  know 
her  riglits  ;^  or  that  she  made  a  mistake  as  to  the  value 
of  the  provision  of  the  A\ill ;  ^'  but  it  is  a  ground  for  re- 
lief, that  she  Avas  prevented  from  filing  her  renun- 
ciation, or  made  to  file  it,  by  misrepresentations  of 
interested  parties,^  unless  she  had  discovered  the 
fraud  before  the  time  for  renouncing  had  elapsed  ;^  or 
that  she  had  been  unable  to  ascertain  the  respective 
values  of  her  dower  and  devise,*'^  owing,  for  example, 


425  DOWER.  I  275 

to  pending  suits.'^  Under  circumstances  like  tMs, 
equity  may  extend  the  time  within  which  she  must 
elect.^  She  may  renounce  conditionally,  the  renuncia- 
tion to  take  effect  if  an  event  happens  before  the  expir- 
ation of  the  limited  time.***  The  widow  musi  elect  in 
person,"  she  cannot  by  attorney,*^  except  under  special 
statutes;^  no  one  can  elect  for  her  if  she  be  insane,*' 
except  by  statute  ;*^  but  if  she  elects  while  insane,  she 
may  ratify  her  act  in  a  lucid  interval.'"^  If  she  dies  bo- 
fore  electing,  her  representatives  cannot,  elect  for  her.*^ 
If  she  is  an  infant,  equity  will  elect  for  her,*^  or  the 
time  for  election  will  be  extended  till  her  majority  ;*3 
but  where  by  statute  her  guardian  is  authorized  to 
elect,  her  election  in  person  is  void.^"  The  practice 
when  a  widow  has  married  again  before  election  dif- 
fers i^*  such  cases  are  rare.  When  she  elects  to  take 
under  the  will,  she  is  a  purchaser  for  valuable  consid- 
eration,5-  for  she  gives  up  dower  ;»^  and  though  her 
rights  are  inferior  to  those  of  creditors,  they  are  supe- 
rior to  tliose  of  any  other  devisee  or  legatee,^*  and,  if 
the  estate  is  solvent,  she  is  not  required  to  contribute 
towards  tlie  payment  of  debts.^^  This  is  the  better 
view,  it  is  said  ;^®  but  it  has  also  been  held  tliat  she  is  a 
creditor  and  comes  against  the  estate  pari  passu  with 
otlier  creditors  ;'=''  that  she  comes  in  ahead  of  creditors 
to  the  extent  of  tlie  value  of  her  dower  ;  ^  and  that  she 
stands  in  precisely  the  same  i^osition  as  any  other  de- 
visee.^* If  she  is  evicted,  she  may  have  dower  propor- 
tionately, generally.*"  If  she  renounces  the  will,  the 
l^roperty  thus  freed  is  a  trust  fund  for  the  benefii  of 
the  devisees  who  are  disappointed  by  her  taking 
dower,  or  if  there  are  none  such,  for  her  husband's 
heirs.fii  A  widow's  right  to  dower  depends  on  the  law 
of  the  place  where  the  lands  lie,*-  and  the  statutory  re- 
quirements as  to  election  within  a  specified  time  apply 


2  275  EOWER.  426 

properly  only  to  domestic  wills.ss  still  it  is  said  that 
the  election  should  bo  made  in  the  place  where  the  will 
is  originally  probated,"^  in  the  place  of  the  domicile,^^ 
and  such  an  election  is  everywhere  binding,^  wliich  is 
also  denied.^' 

1  Stevens  v.  Smith,  4  Marsh.  ,T.  J.  64  ;  20  Am.  Dec.  20o  ;  Mosher,  S2 
are.  4V2;  Cass  ?'.  Thompson.  1  N.  H.  65;  8  Am.  Dec.  36;  Wilcox  v. 
Randall,  7  Barb.  63.3  ;  ante,  i  2.54. 

2  27  Henry  VIII.  ch.  10,  ?  9 ;  Co.  Litt.  .36  6  ;  aiUe,  i  273. 

3  Parham,  6  Huiiiph.  287,  297  ;  ante,  U  273,  27-1. 

4  Worthen  r.  Pearson,  33  Ga.  385,  a87. 

5  1  Bish.  M.  W.  §  430  ;  ante,  |  267. 

6  Rayner  xk  Capehart,  2  Hawks,  375,  377  ;  infra,  n.  7 

7  Anderson,  36  Pa.  St.  476,  406.  See  Brown  v.  Cantrell,  62  Oa.  257  ; 
Sloan  V.  Whituker,  ,58  G:i.  31') ;  Sewall  ?-.  Smith,  .54  Ga.  567  ;  Collins  v. 
Woods,  63  111.  285  ;  Clay  v.  Hart,  7  Dana,  1,  6  ;  Smith  r.  Borie,  7  Bush, 
367  ;  Delay  )■.  Vinal,  i  Met.  57  ;  Reetl  v.  Dickermaii,  12  Pick.  146  ; 
Phelps,  20  Pick.  536;  Stark  v.  Hunton,  1  N.  J.  Eq.  216;  Davison,  15 
N.  .T.  L.  2:«  ;  Thompson  r.  Hook,  6  Ohio  St.  480 ;  Bradfords  r.  Rents, 
43  Pa.  St.  474  ;  CustMti,  i  Rich.  Eq.  1 ;  Wilson  v.  Havne,  1  Cheves  Eq. 
37 ;  Craicr  v.  Walthall.  14  Gratt.  518  ;  Blunt  v.  Gee,  5  Call,  481 ;  Ambler 
V.  Norton,  4  Hen.  &  ^NI.  3S1. 

8  Wak!>,  I  Ves.  Jr.  335;  Butriok  v.  Broadhurst,  1  Ves.  .Tr.  171  ; 
Beaulieu  v.  Cardigan,  3  Brown  Pari.  C.  277  ;  Reynard  v.  Spence,  4 
Beav.  103  ;  supra,  n.  7. 

9  Phelps,  20  Pick.  5.56.    See  O'Driscoll  v.  Roger,  2  Desau.s.  295,  299. 

10  Dixon  V.  McCue,  14  Gratt.  540,  564.  See  Tooke  v.  Hardeman,  7 
Ga.  20 ;  McLaren  v.  Clark,  62  ua.  106  ;  Smither,  9  Bush,  231  ;  Grider  r. 
Eubanks,  12  Bush,  .SIO  ;  Mil  liken  v.  Wellever,  37  Ohio  St.  460  ;  Simon- 
ton  r.  Houston,  78  N.  C.  408. 

11  Reed  r.  Dickerman,  12  Pick.  146, 1.51.  See  Morrison,  2  Dana,  13  ; 
Light,  21  Pa.  St.  407  ;  Smart  v.  Waterhouse,  10  Yerg.  94  ;  McDaniel  ?•. 
Douglas,  6  Humph.  220  ;  Hathaway,  46  Vt.  234. 

12  Hall,  2  McCord  Eq.  269,280.  See  Ridney  v.  Cour.smaker,  12  Ves. 
Jr.  136, 153 ;  Dillon  v.  Parker,  1  Swanst.  a81  n  ;  U.  S.  r.  Duncan,  4  Mc- 
Lean, 99;  Adams.  39  Ala.  274;  Steele,  64  Ala.  438,  461;  Dabney  r. 
Bailev,  42  Ga.  .521 ;  Yandell  )■.  Pugh,  53  Miss.  2<)6  ;  Adsit,  2  Johns.  Ch. 
448,  4.51  ;  7  Am.  Dec.  539  ;  Davis,  II  Ohio  St.  -386;  Anderson,  36  Pa.  St. 
476,  496  ;  Co.K  V.  Rogers,  77  Pa.  St.  160  ;  Pinckney,  2  Rich.  Eq.  219, 
2:J7  ;   Upshaw,  4  Hen.  &  M.  asi,  3<t0,  393. 

13  Reaves  v.  Garrett,  -34  Wa.  5-58  ;  supra,  notes  11, 12. 

14  See  statutes  cited,  ante,  ?  274,  n.  29. 

15  Hawley  v.  James,  5  Paige,  318  ;  N.  Y.  R.  S.  1882,  p.  2198. 

16  Wilson  V.  Cox,  49  Miss.  538,  .542. 

17  Atherton  v.  Corliss,  101  Mass.  40. 

18  Sanders,  14  Smedes  &  M.  81. 

19  Del.  R.  S.  1874,  p.  .534  ;  Palmer  v.  Voorhis,  35  Barb.  479. 

20  Piercy,  19  Ind.  467. 


427  DOWER.  §  275 

21  M(l.  R.  C.  187S,  ??  226-223 ;  Ilinkley  v.  House,  40  Md.  4fil  ;  18 
Am.  Rep.  617 ;  Durham  v.  Rhodes,  23  Md.  2.«  ;  Hanson  v.  Worth- 
ington,  12  Md.  4.?8  :  Power  v.  Jenkins,  13  Md.  4-13  ;  Gough  v.  Manning, 
26  Md.  348  ;  Knighton  v.  Young,  22  Md.  360  ;  Chew  v.  Farmers,  2  Md. 
Ch.  232  ;  Orriek  v.  Boehm,  43  Md.  72, 101 ;  Stew.  &  Carey  H.  &  W.  pp. 
55,56. 

22  Mo.  R.  S.  1870,  §  2194. 

23  Ohio  R.  S.  1880,  §  SHGo ;  Davis,  11  Ohio  St.  386 

24  Ark.  Dig.  1874,  ?  2223. 

25  McCallister  r.  Brand,  11  Men.  B.  370. 

26  Steele,  64  Ala.  4;i8,  461. 

27  Tibblts,  19  Ves.  Jr.  663 ;  English,  3  N.  J.  Eq.  HM, 

23  See  McLaren  v.  Clark,  62  Ga.  106 ;  Simon  ton  v.  Houston,  78  N.  C. 
40S. 

23  Shaw,  2  Dana,  341.  But  see  Rayner  v.  Capehart,  2  Hawks,  375, 
377  ;  Cauffman,  17  Serg.  &  R.  16  ;  Cox  v.  Rogers,  77  Pa.  St.  160, 166, 167. 

30  U.  S.  V.  Duncan,  4  McLean,  99,  102  ;  Collins  v.  Carman,  5  Md. 
504,  532  ;  Smith,  20  N't.  270,  271.  See  Adams,  3!)  Ala.  274  ;  Apperson  v. 
Bolton,  29  Ark.  418,  429,  4:i0  ;  Stephens  v.  Gibbws.  14  Fla.  331  ;  Noswor- 
thy  ti.  Blizzard,  5'i  Ga.  66s  ;  Grider  v.  Eubanks,  12  Bush,  510  ;  Shaw,  2 
Dana,  341  ;  Moore,  8  Miss.  665;  Grant  v.  Hcnly,  64  Mo.  159,  161-163; 
Dougherty  v.  Barnes,  64  Mo.  159  ;  IMorcr,  92  Pa.  St.  265;  Morrow,  3 
Tenn.  Ch.  rv.Vl  ;  Hathaway,  46  Vt.  234 ;  Zoggel  v.  Kuster,  51  Wis.  31 ; 
Wilber,  52  Wis.  298. 

31  Waterbury  v.  Netheriand,  6  Heisk.  512. 

32  Apperson  v.  Bolton,  29  Ark.  418,  429,  430.  Or  insane  :  Collins  v. 
Carman,  5  Md.  504,  532. 

33  Palmer  v.  Voorhis,  a5  Barb.  479  ;  Macknet,  29  N.  J.  Eq.  54  ; 
Light,  21  Pa.  St.  407. 

34  NcDauiel  v.  Douglas,  6  Humph.  220 ;  Waterbury  v.  Netherland, 
6  Heisk.  512. 

.35    Light,  21  Pa.  St.  407  ;  supra,  n.  11. 

36  Hathaway,  46  Vt.  2134. 

37  U.  S.  V.  Duncan,  4  McLean,  99,  102. 

38  Howland  v.  Heckscher,  3  Sand.  Ch.  519  ;  Dutch  v.  Ackerman, 
IN.  J.  Eq.  40. 

39  IT.  S.  V.  Duncan,  4  McLean,  99, 102  ;  Smither,  9  Bush,  231 ;  Grider 
V.  Eubanks,  12  Bush,  510. 

40  McCallister  v.  Brand.  U  Mon.  B.  370. 

41  Collins  V.  Carman,  5  Md.  503,  532  ;  Boone,  3  Har.  &  McH.  95 ; 
Sherman  v.  Newton,  6  Gray,  .307;  Welch  v.  Anderson,  28  Mo.  2j:> ; 
Lewis,  7  Ired.  72  ;  Hintou,  6  Ired.  274. 

42  Hintou,  6  Ired.  274. 

43  Del.  R.  S.  1S74,  p.  534,  §  7 ;  N.  C.  R.  S.  p.  840,  ?  6. 

44  Collins  v.  Carman,  5  Md.  501,  5:12.  See  Ileavenridge  v.  Nelson, 
as  Ind.  90  ;  Newcunib,  13  Bush,  544  ;  26  Am.  Rep.  222  ;  Pinkerton  v. 
Sargent,  102  Mass.  5(W;  Lewis,  7  Ired.  72  ;  Kennedy  c.  Johnston,  65  Pa. 
St.  451  ;  3  Am.  Ri'p.  650;  Wright  )'.  West,  2  Lea,  78.  Qucei-e,  as  to 
right  of  equity  to  elect  for  her :  Collins  v.  Carman,  5  Md.  503,  .527. 

45  N.  C.  R.  S.  1873,  p.  840,  ?  6  ;  Ohio  R.  S.  1880,  ?  5964. 

46  Brown  v.  Hodgson,  31  Me.  65. 


§  276  DOWER.  42S 

47  Collins  i).  Carman,  5  Md.  503,  527.  S.  P.,  Donald  ?>.  Porter,  42  Ala. 
9!) ;  Eltzroth  v.  Blnford,  71  Iiid.  455 ;  Boone,  3  Har.  &  McH.  95 ;  Sher- 
man r.  Newton,  6  Grav,  307  ;  Milliken  v.  WelUver,  37  Ohio  St.  4B0 ; 
Crozier,  DO  Pa.  St.  3S4,  386,  388  ;  35  Am.  Kep.  666.  Contra,  Howland 
V.  lieclischer,  3  Sand.  Ch.  519. 

43    Addison  v.  Bowio,  2  Bland,  60fi,  62.3. 

49  Boushton,  2  Vos.  Sr.  12  ;  Bor,  3  Brown  Pari.  C.  173. 

50  Cheshire  v.  McCoy,  8  Jones,  376. 

51  Gretton  v.  Howard,  1  Swanst.  413;  Putteney  v.  Darlington,  7 
Brown  Pari.  C.  51o  ;  Davis  v.  Page,  9  Ves.  Jr.  350  ;  Barrow,  4  Kay  .t 
J.  40J. 

.52  Steele,  64  Al.a.  4.38,  462  ;  Lord,  23  Conn.  327,  3.30  ;  Hubbard,  6  Met. 
50,  62  ;  Tracey  v.  Mur/ay,  44  Mich.  109,  111 ;  Isenhart  i'.  Bi'own,  1  Edw. 
Ch.  411,  413. 

53  Release  of  dower  is  a  valuable  consideration  :  Ante,  ?  105. 

54  Steele,  64  Ala.  438,  462  ;  Isenhart  v.  Brown,  1  Edw.  Ch.  411,  413. 

55  Lord,  23  Conn.  327,  330. 

.56  Steele,  64  Ala.  4-3,8,  462.  Consult  Norcott  v.  Gordon,  14  Sim.  2.?8  ; 
Tevis  V.  McCrearv,  3  Met.  151  ;  Dunham  v.  Rhodes,  23  Md.  233  ;  Bowie 
V.  Berry,  3  Md.  Ch.  3.59 ;  Hall,  1  Bland,  2a3  ;  Thomas  r.  Wood,  1  Md. 
Ch.  296  ;  Pollard,  1  Allen,  490  ;  Leavenworth  v.  Cooney,  48  Barb.  570  ; 
Williamson,  6  Paige,  298  ;  Jennings,  21  Ohio  St.  56;  Bard,  .S8  Pa.  St. 
393;  Loococls  V.  Clarkson,  1  Desaus.  471;  Stuart  v.  Carson,  I  Desans. 
500. 

57    Tracy  v.  Murray,  44  Mich.  109,  111. 

.58  Gibson  v.  McCormi'-k,  10  Gill  &  J.  65,  113  ;  Thomas  v.  Wood,  1 
Md.  Ch.  296  ;  Hall,  1  KUuid,  203  ;  Guw  v.  Huffman,  12  Gratt.  628,  6:57. 

59  Chambers  v.  Davis,  15  Mon.  B.  722  ;  Brant,  40  Mo.  266.  267  ;  Pax- 
son  V.  Potts,  3  N.  J.  Eq.  313  ;  Howard  v.  Francis,  30  N.  j.  Eq.  444  ; 
Bray  v.  Neill,  21  N.  J.  Eq.  .•;43  ;  Jennings,  21  Ohio  St.  56. 

60  Hastings  v.  Clifford,  32  Me.  13?  ;  Mass.  P.  S.  iaS2,  p.  742.  ?  1.^  ; 
Thompson  r.  McGvw,  1  Met.  66;  Collins  v.  Carman,  5  Md.  50.3,  640; 
Wis.  R.  S.  1878,  i  2173 ;  ante,  i  273. 

61  Jennings,  21  Ohio  St.  56,  80;  Sandre,  65  Pa.  St.  314,  .316.  S"o 
Hanson  v.  Worthington,  12  Md.  418,  4;i8 ;  Hiukley  v.  House,  40  Ml. 
431,  469  ;  18  Am.  Rep.  617. 

62  Jennings,  21  Ohio  St.  56,  76  ;  ante,  ?  248. 

03  Wilson  V.  Cox,  49  Miss.  537,  542  ;  Jennings,  21  Ohio  St.  ."'R,  7i,  .80. 
Cmfra,  Apperson  v.  Bolton,  29  Ark.  418,  428  ;  Van  Arsdale,  26  N.  J.  L. 
404,  412. 

64  Wilson  v.  Cox,  49  Miss.  538,  545. 

65  Wilson  v.  Cox,  49  Miss.  538,  542. 

66  Wilson  V.  Cox,  49  Miss.  5.38,  .542. 

67  Apperson  ri.  Bolton,  29  Ark.  418,  42S  ;  Van  Arsdale,  26  N.  J.  L. 
494,  412. 

?  276.  Estoppel  as  a  bar  to  dower.  —  Xo  act  of  a  mar- 
ried woman  during  ooverture  can  estop  her  from  .set- 
ting up  her  rights  to  doAver,^  except  a  release  duly 
executed  according  to  the  statute,'^  which  estops  her  as 


429  DOWER.  ?  276 

to  all  parties  holding  tliereundcr.^  But  after  her  hus- 
band's deatli  slie  may  be  estoiiped,  for  she  is  sui  Juris.* 
At  common  law  no  collateral  satisfaction  would  bar 
dower,^  but  in  equity  any  provision  accepted  in  lieu  of 
dower  did."5  But  it  was  necessary  that  the  provision 
should  be  expressed  to  be  in  lieu  of  dowerj  or  that  it 
sliould  be  such  an  estate  in  the  dower  lands  as  Avas 
inconsistent  with  dower.^  By  statute  any  devise  in 
lieu  of  dower,  if  accepted,  is  a  bar  at  lavv.^  To  illus- 
trate :  When,  in  accordance  with  an  arrangement  made 
with  her  husband  before  marriage,!"  or  during  cover- 
ture,'!  or  with  his  heirs  ^^  or  a  iiurehaseri^  after  his 
death,  the  widow  accepts  a  provision  instead  of  dower, 
she  is  estopped  froiu  afterwards  claiming  dower ;  and 
such  an  arrangement  may  be  inade  by  parol,"  pro- 
vided that  such  part  jaerformance  has  talcen  iJlace  as 
will  withdraw  the  case  from  the  operation  of  the  stat- 
ute of  frauds.'^  But  if  the  husband, ^^  or  purchaser," 
or  heir,i8  as  the  case  may  be,  has  failed  to  carry  out  the 
arrangement,  the  widow  is  not  barred.  Moreover,  if 
the  widow  stands  by  and  allows  the  lands  of  her  hus- 
band to  be  sold  clear  of  her  dower,  she  is  estopijed 
from  af  terwai'ds  claiming  her  dower  therein  ;  ^^  but  it 
is  not  every  sale  which  she  is  aware  of  wliich  renders 
it  her  duty  to  assert  her  dower,  but  only  such  sales  as 
are  alleged  to  be  free  of  dower  and  with  wliich  she  is  in 
some  way  connected.™  But  if  she  convey  her  hus- 
band's lands  as  administratrix,  slie  does  not  thereby 
estop  herself  from  claiming  dower ,-'i  unless  she  cove- 
nants as  to  the  title, ^'^  whicli  she  is  not  bound  to  do,^ 
or  conveys  as  individual  as  well.^'  So,  slae  may  in  cer- 
tain cases  be  estopped  by  the  covenants  of  an  ancestor.'^ 
So,  if  she  is  made  a  party  to  a  suit,  and  the  joroperty  is 
sold  under  a  decree,  and  she  takes  no  appeal,  she  is 
estopped  by  the  record  ;'^  though  the  complainant  had 


g  276  DOWER.  430 

had  no  right  to  make  her  a  party  at  all.^  But  if  made 
party  as  devisee  in  partition  suit,  she  is  not  barred  of 
dower  in  balance.'-®  Slie  is  not  estopped  by  accepting 
funds  belonging  to  her  husband,^  or  by  spending  all 
the  monej'  of  his  estate.^*' 

1  Worthington  r.  Middleton,  6  Dana,  300,  302  ;  Martin,  22  Ala.  86 ; 
M^Farlanfl  v.  Febigc^r,  7  Ohio,  1!M,  1!I5  ;  28  Am.  Dec.  t>::2  ;  ante,  J  J  269, 
270  ;  post,  40a-l-::o.     Contra,  Connolly  r.  Branstler,  3  Bush,  702,  703. 

2  Roiff  r.  Horst,  55  Md.  42, 47  ;  ante,  I  270. 

3  Chicago  ?-.  Kln.Me,  49  III.  289,  295  ;  ante,  ?  272. 

4  Jones  V.  Powell,  6  Johns.  Ch.  1»1,  200  ;  Stewart  INI.  <§:  D.  ?  452. 

5  O'Brien  v.  Elliott,  15  Me.  125.  127;  32  Am.  Dec.  m.  S.  P.,  Ver- 
non, 4  Rep.  1,  4;  Conant  v.  Little,  1  Pi"k.  IS");  Jones  ?•.  Brewer,  1 
Pick.  314  :  Keeler  v.  Tatnell,  23  >'.  J.  L.  62  ;  Jones  i'.  Powell,  6  Johns, 
Ch.  1!M,  200. 

6  Mundv,  2  Ves.  Sr.  122  ;  Stoddard  v.  Cutcompt,  41  Iowa,  3?9,  333  ; 
Warfield  w  Castleman,  5  Mon.  517,  51S  ;  O'Brien  r.  Elliott.  15  Me.  125, 
127 ;  32  Am.  Dec.  137  ;  Camden  v.  Jones,  23  X.  J.  Eq.  171,  173 ;  Jones  r. 
Powell,  0  Johns.  Ch.  144.  200  ;  Simpson,  8  Pa.  St.  I'0, 216  ;  Bullock  v. 
Griffin,  1  Strob.  Eq.  60 ;  Hunter  v.  Jones,  6  Rand.  541, 550  ;  ante,  H  273, 
275. 

7  Mitchell  v.  Ward,  60  Ga.  525,  531 ;  O'Brien  v.  Elliott,  15  Me.  125, 
129 ;  32  Am.  Dec.  1.37  ;  ante,  U  273, 274. 

8  Park  Dow.  2S4 ;  2  Scribner  Dow.  259  ;  1  Roper  H.  &  W.  25;) ; 
Perk,  i  ;i50. 

9  Worthen  v.  Pearson,  33  Ga.  .385,  3S7 ;  ante,  §  274. 

10  Camden  v.  Jones,  23  X.  J.  Eq.  171,  173  ;  ante,  I  266. 

11  Stodd.ird  v.  Cutcompt,  41  Iowa,  329,  333. 

12  Shotwell  V.  Sedam,  3  Ohio,  5. 13. 

13  Simpson,  8  Pa.  St.  199,  208. 

14  Warfield  v.  Castleman,  5  Mon.  5!7,  518;  Shotwell  v.  Sedam,  3 
Ohio,  5,  13. 

15  Squire  v.  Harder,  1  Paige,  494  ;  19  Am.  Dec.  446. 

16  Dav  V.  West,  2  Edw.  Ch.  592,  .594.  See  Camden  v.  Jones,  23  X.  J. 
Eq.  171,  173. 

17  Sargent  v.  Robert,  34  Me.  135, 138. 

18  Rlchart,  30  Iowa,  465,  468. 

19  O'Brien  v.  Elliott,  15  Me.  125,  12S  ;  .32  Am.  Dec.  137 ;  Moore  v. 
Tisdale,  5  Mon.  B.  .'WJ,  3.>S.  See  Ellis  v.  Diddy,  1  Cart.  561  ;  Gatting  r. 
Rodman,  6  lud.  289  ;  ConoUj-  ■!'.  Brantsler.  3  Bush,  V02  ;  Darnall  r. 
Hill,  12  GUI  &  J.  ass  ;  Wood  v.  Seeley.  32  N.  Y.  105  ;  Smiley  v.  Wright, 
2  Ohio,  506  ;  Stoney  v.  Bank,  1  Rich.  Eq.  27.5. 

20  Lawrence  r.  Brown,  5  N.  Y.  .3<M,  401.  S.  P.,  Owen  r.  Rlatter,  2fi 
Ala.  .547  ;  Wilson  v.  White,  2  Dev.  Eq.  29 ;  Smith  v.  Paysinger,  2 
Mills,  59. 

21  Shurtz  V.  Thomas,  8  Pa.  St.  3.59,  .362  ;  ante,  ?  272. 

22  Maaree  r.  Mellon,  23  Miss.  5S.=i,  5S6.  See  Dundas  v.  Hitchcock,  12 
How.  2.5H ;  McKee  v.  Brown,  43  111.  130;  Johnson  r.  Van  Velson,  43 
Mifh.  20S;  Elmdorf  v.  Lockwood,  57  X.  Y.  322;  Woodruff  i'.  Cook,. 
2  Edw.  Ch.  585. 


431  DowEii.  2  277 

23  Magee  v.  Mellon,  23  iliss.  585,  586. 

24  Styer.  21  Pu.  St.  86,  89  ;  Thomas  r.  Harri.s,  -43  Pa.  St.  2.;i,  2:i3. 

26  Towey  v.  Miner,  1  Smedes  &  M.  4S9  ;  Buss  v.  Perry,  49  N.  H. 

647.  Of  second  husband :  Porter,  1  R.  I.  43. 

26  Gardiner  v.  Miles,  5  Gill,  94, 100. 

27  Lewis  v.  Smith,  9  X.  Y.  502,  514  ;  post,  ?  280. 

28  Walker  v.  Hall,  15  Ohio  St.  a». 

29  0:Brien  v.  Klliott,  15  Me.  125  129 ;  32  Am.  Dec.  137. 

30  Caruthers  v.  Wilson,  1  Smedes  &  M.  o'.7  ;  Kennedy  v.  McAliley, 
0  Rich,  395. 

g  277.  Limitations  and  laches  as  bars  to  dower.  —  Until 
her  husband's  death  a  wife  ha.s  no  ve.sted  interest  in 
his  lands,'  and  therefore  in  no  case  can  she  be  barred 
by  an  adverse  possession  against  him  during  cover- 
ture.* Tlie  English  Statute  of  Limitations  ^  Avas  held 
not  to  apply  to  dower,^  because  it  makes  the  time  run 
from  seisin,  and  a  widow  has  no  seisin  until  her  dower 
has  been  assigned.^  For  the  same  reason  and  for  other 
reasons,  for  example,  that  there  is  a  natural  limitation 
to  claims  for  dower  in  the  widow's  deatli,  and  no  need 
of  statutory  limitation;^  dower  has  been  held  without^ 
the  operation  of  some  statutes  in  the  United  States.' 
But  other  general  statutes  have  V)oon  held  to  include 
the  widow's  right  to  dower,^  and  in  many  States  the 
statute  expressly  refers  to  this  righi.^  These  statute.} 
are  prospectively  construed,'"  and  are  either  aj^plied 
to  no  right  where  the  husband  has  died  before  their 
passage,''  or  the  limited  period  is  made  to  begin  only 
from  the  time  of  their  passage.'^  They  do.  not  apply 
generally,  when  the  wife  is  beyond  seas.'^  It  is  said, 
too,  tliat  limitations  do  not  run  while  the  heir  is  in  po  •- 
session  and  not  claiming  adversely  ;  '*  and  that  the 
widow  is  barred  in  any  case  by  adverse  possession 
against  the  heirs.'»  Limitations  must  be  pleaded  to  bo 
a  bar.'*  Even  when  Statutes  of  Limitations  have  no 
application,  the  widow  may  be  barred  in  equity  by 
laches." 


g  278  dowk:;.  4S2 

1  Moore  r.  Mavor,  S  X.  V.  110,  ll.T  ;  53  Am.  Hec.  -JT:!  ;  n;i^«,  H  2fi0, 
263. 

2  Hart  r.  McCollum,  2S  Ga.  -ITS;  Durham  x:  Aiigier,  20  Me.  2J2 ; 
Moore  v.  Frost,  3  >i\  H.  126. 

3  32  Henr.v  VIII.  ch.  2  ;  21  James  I.  ch.  Ifi. 

4  Park  Dow.  311  ;  2  Scribuer  Dow.  bryx 

5  Parker  v.  Obear,  7  :Met.  24  ;  Barnari  ?•.  E  lwiir;ls,  4  X.  TT.  107 ; 
17  Am.  Dec.  403;  Moore  i'.  Frost,  3  N.  H.  123;  Guthrie  r.  Owen,  10 
Yerg.  330. 

fi  Conover  v.  Wright,  6  X.  J.  Eq.  412;  Campbell  v.  Murphy,  2 
Jones  Eq.  3o7. 

7  Wakeman  v.  Roache,  Dudley,  423  ;  Toobe  v.  Hardeman.  7  Ga. 
20:  Chapman  v.  Shroeder,  10  Ga.  321  :  Phares  v.  Walters,  6  Clarke, 
lOu;  KoUs  i:  Hughes,  1  Dana,  407:  Wells  v.  Beall,  2  Gill  &  J.  46.S  ; 
Riildall  c.  Trimble,  1  Md.  Ch.  143,  150  :  May  ;•.  Rumney,  1  Mich.  1  ; 
Littleton  c.  Patterson,  32  Mo.  :ii7  ;  Brown  c.  Moore,  74  Mo.  633  ;  Spen- 
cer V.  Weston,  1  Itev.  ct  B.  21!:  MoMullln  r.  Turner,  7  Jones,  435; 
Siraonton  v.  Houston,  78  X.  C.  403  ;  supra,  notes  5,  6. 

8  Rice  V.  Xelson,  27  Iowa,  US ;  Kingsolving  v.  Pierce,  13  Mon.  B. 
7S2  :  Dunham  c.  .\ngier,  20  Me.  212  ;  Torre.v  v.  Minor,  1  Smedes  &  M. 
Cli.  4s:» :  Conover  v.  Wright.  6  X.  .T.  Eq.  613:  Berrien  v.  Coiiover,  in 
X.  J.  L.  107;  Jones  v.  Powell,  6  Johns.  Ch.  ISM;  Tuttle  i:  Wilson,  10 
Ohio,  24;  Care  v.  Keller,  77  Pa.  St.  4S7  ;  Allen,  2  Pa.  311;  Caston,  2 
Rich.  Eq.  1 ;  Stone.v  v.  Bank,  1  Rich.  Eq.  275. 

9  Ga.  R.  C.  1S7'!,  ?  1761  ;  Mass.  P.  .S.  1SS2,  pp.  742,  ?  U  ;  X.  H.  R.  S. 
1S78,  pp.  510,  511  ;  X.  Y.  R.  S.  1S;>2,  p.  2198. 

10  Ante,  II  17-20  ;  Martin,  35  Ala.  560  ;  infra,  notes  11, 12. 

11  Tooke  r-.  Hardeman,  7  Ga.  20;  Savre  v.  Wisner,  8  Wend,  er,:  ; 
Ward  V.  Kilts,  12  Wend.  137. 

12  Tooke  !'.  Hardeman,  7  Ga.  20. 

13  Larrowe  v.  Beam,  10  Ohio,  493. 

14  Livingston  v.  Cochran,  33  Ark.  234 ;  Sully  v.  Xebergill,  ."0 
Iowa,  ;S3  ;  Fetch  v.  Finch,  52  Iowa,  533 ;  Rickard  v.  Talbird,  Rice  Eq. 

\m. 

15  Carmichacl,  5  Humph.  06. 

16  Hitchcock  I'.  Harrington,  6  Johns.  230  ;  5  Am.  Dec.  223. 

17  Banksdale  v.  Garrett,  61  \h\.  277  :  :McLaren  >•.  Clark,  6'2  Ga.  106  : 
Robinson  c.  Miller,  2  Mon.  H,  2s4.  2^7  ;  Holls  r.  Uui^hes,  1  Dana,  407  : 
Riddall  !■.  Trimble,  1  Md.  Ch.  U:f.  l.iO ;  Steiger  r.  inilen,5Glll  A  J. 
121  ;  Chew  v.  Farmers,  9  Gill,  ,561 ;  Tuttla  v.  Wilson,  10  Ohio,  24  ;  2 
Scribner  Dow.-568. 

I  278.  Dedication  to  public  usos,  as  a  bar  ta  dowor.  —  If 
the  luisbaiur.s  pi-operty  is  taken  by  right  of  eminent 
domain,  dower  is  defeated,^  and  the  husband's  vohin- 
tary  dedication  thereof  to  public  uses  has  the  same 
effect ;  -  so  that  there  is  no  dower  in  public  streets, 
parks,  libraries,^  markets,*  jails,  court  houses,  offices, 
etc.,^  or  in  property  condemned  for  railroads,'  etc.,  as 


433  DOWER.  §  279 ' 

there  was  none  in  a  castle  of  oldJ  But  when  a  railroad 
has  bought  proi^erty  instead  of  taking  it  by  right  of 
eminent  domain,  dower  exists.^  If  tlie  property  is 
taken  during  coverture  and  damages  are  awarded,  no 
allowance  will  in  general  be  made  for  the  inchoate 
dower;®  but  if  the  property  is  taken  after  the  hus- 
band's death,  dower  will  be  allowed  out  of  the  dam- 
ages.'" 

1  Bonner  v.  Peterson,  44  111.  2511.  25S  ;  Duncan  v.  Terre  Haute,  85' 
Ind.  104,  1!W;  French  v.  Lord,  6l»  Me.  5;J7,  541  ;  Xve  v.  Taunton,  n:j 
Mass.  277,  279;  Wheeler  v.  Kirtland,  27  N.  J.  Eq.  .5:J4,  .53fi ;  Moore  r. 
Mayor,  8  N.  Y.  110,  114  ;  4  Sand.  4.56,  460  ;  r,')  Am.  Dec.  473  ;  Gwynne  v. 
Cincinnati,  3  Ohio,  24,  25 ;  17  Am.  Dec.  516 ;  Weaver  v.  Gregg,  6  Ohio 
St,  547,  .519 ;  Little  v.  Jones,'  5  Week.  Law  Gaz.  5, 7. 

2  Gwynne  v.  Cincinnati,  .3  Ohio,  24,  25  ;  17  Am.  Dec.  516;  Duncan  ' 
V.  Terre  Haute,  a5  Ind.  104,  106. 

3  1  Scribner  Dow.  5S2. 

4  French  v.  Lord,  63  Me.  .537,  541 ;  Moore  v.  Mayor,  8  X.  Y.  1 10, 114 ; 
59  Am.  Dec.  473. 

5  Gwynne  v.  Cincinnati,  3  Ohio,  24,  2.5. 

6  Little  V.  Jones,  5  Week.  Law  Gaz.  5,  7. 

7  Wheeler  v.  Kirtland,  27  N.  J.  Eq.  534,  538. 

8  Nye  V.  Taunton,  113  Mass.  277,  279. 

9  French  v.  Lord,  69  Me.  .537,  .541 ;  Moore  v.  Mayor,  8  N.  Y.  110, 114  : 
59  Am.  Dec.  473. 

10    Bonner  v.  Peters,  44  111.  253,  2.53  ;  French  v.  Lord,  69  Me.  537, 511. 

g  279.  Defeat  of  dower  by  determination  of  husband's  es- 
tate.—  When  the  liusband  hold.s  or  has  held  a  defea.s- 
ible  title,  and  it  is  defeated,  as  where  he  or  his  heirs 
are  evicted  by  title  paramount, i  or  a  determinable 
estate,  and  it  is  terminated,  as  a  base  fee,^  the  wife's 
dower  also  terminates,^  as  her  estate  is  but  a  part  or 
continuation  of  lier  husband's  ;  *  the  possible  exception 
to  this  rule  being  the  case  of  an  estate  determinable  on 
a  conditional  limitation  or  executory  devise." 

1  Toomey  v.  McLean,  105  Mass.  122 ;  ante,  U  252,  2.54. 

2  Jackson  v.  Kip,  8  N.  J.  L.  241  ;  ante,  I  254. 

3  Discussed  ante,  ?  254. 

4  Norwood  v.  Morrow,  4  Dev.  &  B.  442,  443  ;  ante,  U  262-264. 

5  Milledge  %<.  Lamnr,  4  Desaus.  617,  6';7,  645  ;  ante,  I  254. 

H.  &  W.  — 37. 


§  280  DOWER,  434 

§  280.  Barring  of  dower  by  legal  proceedings  and  sale  of 
the  property.  —  Whether  a  married  woman  has  such  an 
interest  through  her  inchoate  dower  right  that  she 
must  be  a  party  to  any  suit  respecting  the  lands  In 
which  such  right  exists,  seems  to  depend  not  only  on 
the  nature  of  the  suit  and  superioritj'  or  inferiority  of 
her  right  to  the  right  of  the  suitor,  but  upon  local  prac- 
tice and  local  etatutes.^  Any  sale  of  her  husband's 
lands  during  coverture  undfer  a  lien  prior  to  dower, 
passes  the  property  clear  of  dower ;  -  and  whether  she 
should  be  made  a  party,  if  the  suit  is  in  equity,  and 
should  have  a  provision  out  of  the  surplus,  if  any, 
seems  to  be  disputed,^  the  better  opinion  being  that  she 
should  not,*  A  sale  during  coverture  under  an  inferior 
lien  has  no  effect  on  dower ;  *  nor  can  the  holder  of 
such  a  lien  drag  her  into  court  and  have  the  property 
sold  clear  of  her  dower.^  After  the  husband's  death 
the  widow  should  be  a  party  to  all  suits  affecting  the 
lands  subject  to  dower  ;^  a  sale  under  a  prior  lien 
passes  the  property  clear  of  dower,  but  she  has  dower 
In  the  surplus,  if  the  sale  be  in  equity ;  ^  and  no  sale 
under  a  subsequent  lien  can  affect  her  dower  without 
her  consent,^  These  questions  commonly  arise  in  fore- 
closure suits  and  in  partition  suits.  In  the  former, 
whUe  it  is  not  always  necessary  it  is  generally  proper 
to  make  the  vnie  a  party,!"  As  to  the  latter,  when  the 
husband  institutes  partition  proceedings  it  is  the  better 
practice  to  make  his  wife  a  party  defendant."  When 
the  suit  is  instituted  by  one  of  his  co-owners,  the  better 
opinion  is,  that  the  liability  to  be  partitioned  is  an  inci- 
dent to  the  estate  to  which  the  wife's  dower  is  subject, 
and  that  a  sale  in  such  a  suit  defeats  dower  whether 
she  be  a  party  or  not.'"'  But,  though  it  is  settled  that 
her  inchoate  dower  is  not  a  sufficient  estate  to  base  par- 
tition proceedings  on,^*  in  many  States  the  rule  is  that 


435  DOWER.  §  281 

she  must  be  made  a  party  or  will  not  be  barred.'* 
When  her  husband  sues  in  ejectment  he  need  not  join 
her.i^ 

1  Jackson  v.  Edwards,  7  Paige,  386,  390,  391,  3y2,  403,  403,  410,  413  ;  22 
Wend.  4it8.  8ee  Goodwin  v.  Keney,  4a  Conn.  6ti;i ;  Aiitliouy  v.  Nve,  30 
Cal.  401;  Leonard  i'.  Villars,  2J  III.  37H;  Stephens  v.  Bichnell,27  IIJ. 
444  ;  Rank  v.  Hanna,  6  Ind.  20  ;  Martin  v.  Noble,  29  Ind.  21(j ;  Kissel  v. 
Eaton,  64  Ind.  248;  Tisdale  v.  Risk,  7  Bush,  lay;  Warren  v.  Twilley, 
10  Md.  30,  01 ;  Chambers  v.  Nicholson,  ;50  Md.  349  ;  Johns  v.  Reardon, 
3  Jld.  Ch.  57  ;  Pritts  v.  Aldrich,  11  Allen,  39,  40  ;  Lamb  v.  Mont;«uo, 
112  Muss.  3o2, 353  ;  Davis  v.  Wetherell,  13  Allen,  60,  Ki ;  Wisner  v.  Farn- 
ham,  2  Mich.  472  ;  Greiner  r.  Klein,  23  Mich.  12, 17  ;  Byrne  v.  Taylor, 
4ii  Miss.  115  ;  Deimiston  v.  Potts,  U  Smedos  &  M.  38  ;  Thornton  v.  Pigg, 
24  Mo.  249  ;  Roddick  v.  Walsh,  15  Mo.  519,  5.a  ;  Worsham  v.  Collison, 
4J  Mo.  206 ;  Lee  v.  Lindell,  22  Mo.  2j2,  206 ;  Jordan  v.  Van  Epps,  19 
Hun,  526 ;  58  How.  Pr.  3.';8 ;  Wilkinson  v.  Parish,  3  Paige,  65 ! ;  Denton 
V.  Nanny,  8  Barb.  6H,  622 ;  Merchants  v.  Thompson,  53  N.  Y.  7 ;  Mills 
V.  Van  Voorhis,  20  N.  Y.  412  ;  Trustees  v.  Roth,  18  N.  Y.  Week.  Dig. 
459  ;  Matthews,  1  Edw.  Ch.  535  ;  Rosekrans  v.  White,  7  Lans.  4>6,  48j ; 
Ripple  V.  Gilborn,  8  How.  Pr.  456,  4fi0  ;  Disbrow  v.  Folgcr,  5  Abb.  Pr. 
S»,  54  ;  Riker  v.  Darky,  4  Edw.  Ch.  608,  66J ;  Lewis  v.  Smith,  11  Barb. 
152;  9  N.  Y.  502;  Raynor,  21  Hun,  36;  Ross  v.  Boardman,  22  Hun, 
527,  .523  ;  Weaver  v.  Gregg,  6  Ohio  St.  547,  5.50,  552  ;  Swecsy  v.  Shadv, 
22  Ohio  St.  a'ia  ;  Ketchum  v.  Shaw,  28  Oliio  St.  503,  506  ;  Parmentor  v. 
Binkley,  28  Ohio  St.  32 ;  McArthnr  v.  Franklin,  15  Ohio  St.  4S5 ;  16 
Ohio  St.  41  ;  Robinson  v.  Shacklett,  29  Gratt.  99,  107. 

2  Weaver  v.  Gregg,  6  Ohio  St.  547,  552  ;  ante,  \  258. 

3  Compare  Vreeland  v.  Jacobus,  19  N.  J.  Eq.  231,  232,  with  Fol- 
som  V.  Rhodes,  23  Ohio  St.  4i5,  438. 

4  Titus  V.  Neilson,  5  Johns.  Ch.  452,  457  ;  ante,,  U  253,  2GI. 

5  Combs  V.  Young,  4  Yerg.  218,  226  ;  26  Am.  Dec.  2?5 ;  ante,  ?  253. 

6  Lewis  V.  Smith,  11  Barb.  152 ;  9  N.  Y.  502,  514. 

7  Holien  )■.  Baggess,  20  W.  Va.  62,  74.  See  Helms  v.  Love,  41  Ind. 
210  ;  Kent  v.  Taggait,  68  Ind.  163;  Blair,  45  Iowa,  42; 

8  Mautz  V.  Buchanan,  1  Md.  Ch.  202  ;  ante,  U  -JS,  23L 

9  Gardiner  v.  Miles,  5  Gill,  94, 100 ;  ante,  i  276. 
10    Ante,  i  261 ;  Boone  Mortgages,  5  179. 

U     Rosekrans  v.  White,  7  Lans.  486, 4S3. 

12  Weaver  i\  Gregg,  6  Ohio  St.  547,  552;  Lee  v.  Lindell,  22  Mo.  232, 
203. 

13  Riker  v.  Darky,  4  Edw.  Ch.  663,  663. 

14  Rank  v.  Hanna,  6  Ind.  20 ;  Greiner  v.  Klein,  23  Mich.  12,  17 ; 
Jackson  I'.  Edwards,  7  Paige,  38S,  391,  410,  411;  22  Wend.  438;  Van 
Gelder  v.  Post,  2  Edw.  Ch.  577. 

15  Lee  v.  Lindell,  22  Mo.  202,  205. 

§  221.  Defeat  of  dowor  by  divorce.  —  A  divorce  a  mensa 
el'thoro  has  no  effect  on  dower,  but  a  divorce  a  vinculo 
inatrimonii,  in  the  absence  of  statute  defeats  dower.* 

1    Discussed  Ste\vart  M.  &  D.  2  446. 


k 


g  282-283  DOWEU.  436 

I  2o2.  Bankrupccj  of  husband  as  bar  to  dower.  —  Tlie 
husband's  bankruptcy  defeats  dower  only  where  his 
voluntary  assignment  would.^  As  a  rule,  therefore, 
the  husband's  assignee  in  bankruptcy  takes  his  lands 
subject  to  dower,^  and  has  no  control  over  the  dower- 
right.*  In  some  States  a  wife  has  the  same  rights  on 
her  husband's  bankruptcy  as  on  his  death.* 

1  See  Perkins  v.  McDonald,  10  Lea,  72,  TH  ;  Rhea  r>.  Meredith,  S 
Lea,  6J.),  603. 

2  Porter  ?>.  Layear,  109  U.  S.  ai,  83  ;  87  Pa.  St.  5i:5 ;  m  Am.  Rep  380; 
Du-llpy  I'.  E.iston,  1(M  U.  S.  9.),  1U5 ;  Bartenbiich,  11  Bank  Reg.  61  ; 
An-jier,  4  B  ink.  Re?.  619;  Am.  Law  Rf?.  X.  S.  l>i) ;  Lawrence. -ll 
Conn.  -J'.!,  42 1;  Dwizer  i\  Garlou^h,  31  Ohio  St.  loS  ;  Kelso,  2  Week. 
Notes,  475  ;  Speak e  v.  Kinarcl,  4  S.  C.  54. 

3  Dudley  v.  Easton,  104  U.  S.  90, 10.5. 

4  Warford  r.  :Xoble,  9  BLss.  C.  C.  320, 32?. ;  Lawrence,  40  Conn.  411, 
,424. 

I  Article  III. — Assign .mkxt  of  Dower. 

?  23'5.  Tlie  widow's  right  to  an  assignment. 

{  284.  Who  must  assign. 

{  28.5.  ^V.sslgnment  without  suit  — Of  and  again.st  common  right. 

I  286.  Assignment  by  suit  — At  common  law. 

I  287.  Assignment  by  .suit  —  At  law  under  statutes. 

J  2S3.  Assignment  by  suit  — In  equity. 

{  281.  Proof  of  right  to  dower. 

J  200.  Estoppels  against  defendant. 

\  201.  Widow's  right  to  dower  in  mansion  house. 

I  202.  Assignment  by  metes  and  bounds. 

{  203.  Assignment  in  rents  and  profits. 

8  294.  .tVssignment  in  gross  sum. 

{  20).  Widow's  right  in  improvements. 

{  206.  Widow's  right  to  damages  in  law. 

\  237.  Widow's  right  to  account  of  mesne  profits  in  equity. 

I  293.  ESFect  of  assignment. 

{  209.  Effect  of  excessive  assignment. 

{  300.  EfToct  of  e^'1?tion  from  assigned  lands. 

§  283.  Tho  v/iuow's  rijht  to  an  assignment  of  dower. — 
The  right  to  dower  vests  on  the  husband's  death,i  but 
the  A\iaow  has  no  right  to  enter  on  her  dower  lands — 
no  estate  in  tliein^ — until  assignment.^    She  may  re- 


437  IK)  WER.  §284 

main  in  the  family  dwelling  until  dower  is  assigned  — 
this  is  lier  quarantine;*  and  she  has  the  right  to  have 
her  dower  assigned  as  soon  as  practicable,  a  period 
being  usually  fixed  by  statute.^ 

1  Thornburg,  18  W.  Va.  522,  527  ;  ante,  U  251,  262. 

2  Blodget  V.  Brent,  3  Cranch  C.  C.  3W,  396  ;  ante,  U  262,  263. 

3  Moore  v.  Mayor,  8  N.  Y.  110,  113,  114 ;  59  Am.  Dec.  473  ;  ante, 
ii  262-264. 

4  Discussed  Stewart  M.  &  D.  J  453. 

5  Consult  post,  ??  20.5-207. 

g  284.  Who  must  assija  dowor. — The  tenant  of  the 
freehold  must  assign  dower,'  thougli  sometimes  by 
statute  another  maj',  as  a  tenant  for  years,-  or  the  hus- 
band's executor.*  And  whoever  is  comi>ollable  by 
writ  to  assign  dower  may  assign  it  without  writ,  and 
vice  versaJ  The  tenant  need  not  have  a  good  title,  his 
act  being  ministerial  only,^  and  the  legal  owner  will 
be  bound  if  the  assignment  were  of  common  right,^ 
and  be  bound  till  he  avoids  it,  if  the  assignment  were 
against  common  riglit,'  And  the  same  rule  apiilied  to 
an  assignment  by  a  joint  tenant.^  Tlie  tenant  must 
assign,  though  an  infant,^  and  a  guardian  may  make 
the  assignment.!*  Of  course  when  the  assignment  is 
made  by  legal  proceedings,  the  sheriff,"  or  other  officer 
of  tlie  court  makes  it.'^ 

1  Park  Dow.  265,  266  ;  2  Scribner  Dow.  75. 

2  B.  I.  R.  S.  1882,  p.  637,  I  5. 

3  Harrow  v.  Johnson,  3  Met.  (Ky.)  578. 

4  2  Scribner  Dow.  75. 

5  Park  Dow.  266. 

6  2  Scribner  Dow.  77;  Park  Dow.  266.  "Unless  obtained  by  col- 
lusion :  Co.  Litt.  35  a. ;  post,  ?  285. 

7  Rowe  V.  Power,  2  Bos.  &  P.  N.  S.  1,  33  ;  2  Scribner  Dow.  78. 

8  Perk.  J  397  ;  2  Co.  67  a. ;  2  Scribner  Dow.  79. 

9  1  Roll.  Abr.  137,  681  ;  Jones  ?'.  Brewer,  1  Pic'.c.  314,  317. 

19  Bovors  1'.  Newbanks,  2  Cirt.  3S8 ;  Robinson  v.  Miller,  1  Mon. 
B.  88  ;  2  "Moil.  B.  2.->4  ;  Young  v.  Tarbell,  37  Me.  50.» ;  Curtiss  v.  Hobart, 
n  M'\  130:  .lones  v.  Brewer,  1  Pick.  314,  317.  See  Mass.  P.  S.  18«2.  p. 
J87,  5  31  ;  Wis.  R.  s.  1873,  §  3984.  Contra,  Bonner  v.  Peterson  44  lil. 
i>! ;  finernsey,  21  11!.  4!'!. 


I  285  DOWER.  438 

11  See  past,  ?  287. 

12  See  Barton  v.  Hinds,  48  JIc.  i:i  ;  Miller,  12  Mass.  4.54. 

§  285.    Assignment  without  suit — Of  and  against  com- 
mon ri  jht.  —  The  party  who  is  bound  to  make  an  assign- 
ment of  dower  i  may  do  so  without  legal  proceedings, 
and  such  an  assignment  if  fairly  made  will  be  as  valid 
as  if  made  under  a  decree  of  court.^    He  may  either  set 
ofi"  to  her  by  metes  and  bounds  one  third  of  the  lands 
and  tenements,'  or,  if  the  husband's  interest  in  the 
lands  be  incorporeal  One  third  of  his  interest,*  thus  giv- 
ing her  exactly  what  she  is  entitled  to,  which  is  an 
assignment  "of  common  right." ^    Or  he  may  by  an 
agreement  with  her  set  off  to  some  portion  of  the  lands, 
or  some  interest  in  the  incorporeal  hereditaments,  in  lieu 
of  what  she  is  really  entitled  to,^  this  being  an  assign- 
ment " against  common  right."'    If  the  assignment  is 
of    common   right   it  is   binding  thougli   made  by  a 
wrongful  tenant,^  the  widow  holds  the  property  clear 
of  all  encumbrances  inferior  to  dower,^  and,  if  it  be 
taken  from  her  under  prior  encumbrances,  she  may 
be  endowed  anew  out  of  the  balance  of  the  estate ;  "* 
whereas  an  assignment  against  common  right  is  not 
binding  unless  made  by  the  rightful  tenant,ii  the  lands 
are  liable  for  the  liusband's  debts,^^  and  if  she  is  de- 
prived of  her  enjoyment  of  them  she  has  no  remedy 
against   the  balance  of  the  estate.^^    The  assignment 
may  be  made  without  writing,^*  for  the  widow's  right 
is  not  thereby  created  but  only  ascertained.^*     And 
where  the  widow  and  tlie  heir  made  an  agreement  as 
to  the  division  between  them  of  the  rents  and  profits 
of  a  mine,  such  an  agreement  was  deemed  an  assign- 
ment of  dower  and  valid  under  the  statute  of  frauds.'^ 
In  a  case  where  the  assignment  is  against  common  right 
and  the  Avidow  accepts  a  provision  in  lands  instead  of  her 


439  DOWEK.  §  286 

legal  dower,  the  tran:-,ac'aoii  is  taken  out  of  the  statute 
of  frauds  by  part  performance.^^ 

1  Ante,  \  28-1. 

2  Hill  V.  Mitchell,  5  Ark.  608,  023  ;  Menifee,  3  Eng.  9  ;  Shelton  v. 
Carrol,  16  Ala.  148;  Johnson  v.  Neil,  4  Ala.  166;  Crocker  v.  Fox,  1 
Root,  227  ;  Lenfers  v.  Henke,  73  111.  405  ;  24  Am.  Rep.  2(i:j ;  MeCormick 
i>.  Taylor, 2  Cart.  3;i6,  338  ;  Robinson  v.  Miller,  1  Men.  B.  88  ;  2  Mon.  B. 
284  ;  Mitchell  v.  Miller,  6  Dana,  7'J  ;  Baker,  4  Me.  67  ;  Young  v.  Tarbell, 
37  Me.  .50l» ;  Austin,  50  Me.  74  ;  Shattuck  v.  Gregg.  23  Pick.  88  ;  Meserve, 
19  N.  H.  240 ;  Clark  7'.  Mussey,  43  N.  H.  59  ;  Rutherford  v.  Graham,  4 
Hun,  706  ;  NcLaughlin,  20  N.  J.  Eq.  190 ;  Sutton  v.  Burrows,  2  Murph. 
79. 

3  Park  Dow.  251  ;  2  Scribner  Dow.  80  ;  1  Wash.  Real  Prop.  223. 

4  2  Scribner  Dow.  80  ;  Stevens,  3  Dana,  371. 

5  See  also  Schnebly,  26  111.  116  ;  Pierce  v.  Williams,  3  N.  J.  D.  703. 

6  Johnson  v.  Neil,  4  Ala.  166;  Beers  v.  Strong,  Kirby,  1!);  1  Am. 
Dec.  10 ;  Robinson  v.  Miller,  1  Mon.  B.  88  ;  2  Mon.  B.  284 ;  French  v. 
Peters,  33  Me.  396  ;  French  v.  Pratt,  27  Me.  381 ;  Jones  v.  Brewer,  1 
Pick.  314,  317  ;  Draper  v.  Baker,  12  Cush.  288 ;  Marshall  v.  McPherson, 
8  Gill  <fe  J.  333  ;  Welch  v.  Anderson,  28  Mo.  293  ;  Pinkham  v.  Gear,  3 
N.  H.  163  ;  Hale  v.  James,  6  Johns.  Ch.  2,58  ;  10  Am.  Dec.  328  ;  Fowler 
V.  Grifltin,  3  Sand.  385;  Gown,  17  S.  C.  532  ;  Fitzhugh,  3  Call,  13  ;  ante, 
i  276. 

7  Jones  v.  Brewer,  1  Pick.  314,  317 ;  supra,  n.  6. 

8  2  Scribner  Dow.  77  ;  ante,  |  284. 

9  Scott  V.  Hancock,  13  Mass.  102  ;  ante,  I  258. 

10  AVillett  r.  Beattv,  12  Mon.  B.  172  ;  Scott  v.  Hancock,  13  Mass. 
162  :  Pierson  v.  Williams,  23  Miss.  64. 

11  Rowe  V.  Power,  2  Bos.  &  P.  N.  S.  1,  33  ;  ante,  §  284. 

12  French  v.  Pratt,  27  Me.  381 ;  Mantz  v.  Buchanan,  1  Md.  Ch.  202, 
205 ;  ante,  258. 

13  Scott  ■!'.  Hancock,  13  Mass.  162  ;  Jones  v.  Brewer,  1  Pick.  314  ; 
Hollo wman,  5  Smedes  &  M.  559. 

14  Rowe  ?T.  Power,  5  Bos.  &  P.  1,  .33  ;  Johnson  v.  Neil,  4  Ala.  106 ; 
Curtis  V.  Hobart,  41  Me.  230  ;  Jones  v.  Brewer,  1  Pick.  314 ;  Meserve, 
19  N.  H.  240. 

15  Conant  v.  Little,  1  Pick.  191 ;  Shattuck  v.  Gregg,  23  Pick.  18J  ; 
Williams  v.  Bennet,  4  I  red.  122  ;  Co.  Litt.  35  a. 

16  Lenfers  v.  Henke,  73  111.  405 ;  24  Am.  Rep.  263. 

17  Squire  v.  Harder,  1  Paige,  494  ;  19  Am.  Dec.  446. 

§  286.  Assignment  by  suit  —  At  common  law.  —  The 
legal  remedy  at  common  law  to  enforce  an  assignment 
of  dower  is  by  writ  of  dower  \mde  nihil  habet,  or  by  writ 
of  riglit  of  dower,  brought  against  the  tenant  of  the 
freehold ;  upon  which  if  judgment  is  obtained,  dower 
is  assigned  by  the  slieriff,  and  the  widow  may  then 


§2  287-288  DOWER.  440 

proceed  in  ejectment  to  get  possession.  Inasmuch  a:s 
the  common  law  proceedings  for  dower  are  almost 
obsolete  —  in  Mr.  Scribner's  chaj)ter  thereupon  not  one 
American  case  is  cited  —  the  discussion  thereof  is 
omitted.i 

1    See  2  Scribner  Dow.  ch.  v. 

I  237 .  Assignment  by  suit  —  At  law  under  statutes .  —  In 
many  States  statutes  have  somewhat  modified  the  com- 
mon law  i^rocedure,  and  subject  to  such  modifications 
a  writ  of  dower  unde  nihil  habet  may  still  be  sued  out.^ 
One  common  modification  is  that  demand  is  a  prerequi- 
site to  the  suit,^  whereas  at  common  law  it  was  not 
necessary,^  except  to  enable  the  demandant  to  recover 
damages.*  It  is  also  commonly  provided  by  statute, 
that  where  there  is  no  contest,  dower  may  be  assigned 
by  the  probate  court  in  summary  proceedings.^  But 
procedure  at  law  for  dower  is  so  much  a  local  matter 
that  it  will  not  be  discussed  herein. 

1  See  Lavton  r.  Butler,  4  Har.  (Del.)  507  ;  Waters  ?'.  Gouch,  C 
Marsh.  J.  J.  5Sb ;  22  Am.  Dec.  lOS  ;  Mass.  P.  S.  1882,  p.  102:5 ;  Rodgers 
V.  Potter,  33  N.  J.  Eq.  73  ;  Vensel,  77  Pa.  St.  71  ;  2  Scribner  Dow.  ch.  G. 

2  Crocker  v.  Fox,  1  Root,  227  ;  Strown,  .50  111.  256  ;  McCrackeii  ?•. 
Kuhn,  7.J  liid.  14J ;  M^rriil  r.  Sliuttuck,  5>  Me.  370 ;  Luce  ?'.  Stubhs,  :^5 
Me.  f>2, 95  ;  Parkor  v.  Murph  v,  12  Mass.  -185  ;  Davis  v.  Walker,  42  M.  H. 
482  ;  Stevens  v.  Reed,  37  N.  H.  49  ;  Ellis,  4  R.  I.  110. 

3  Hitchcock  v.  Harrington,  6  Johns.  295,  296  ;  5  Am.  Dec.  229. 

4  Considered  post,  ?  206. 

5  2  Scribner  Dow.  ch.  fi ;  2  Kent,  72  ;  1  Wash.  Real  Prop.  226 ;  1 
Hill.  Real  Prop.  172. 

I  2S3.  Assignment  by  suit  —  In  equity.  —  Equity  fir.st 
took  jurisdiction  in  assigning  dower,  in  cases  where 
discovery  was  prayed  ;i  and  tlien  this  jurisdiction  was 
extended  generally,^  principally  becau.se  dower  can  be 
assigned  by  the  same  machinery  which  is  used  in  par- 
tition suits  and  in  settling  accounts,'  until  it  became 
commonly  concurrent  with  the  jurisdiction  of  law.* 
Where  dower  in  equitable  estates  is  to  be  awarded, 


441  DOWER.  g  288 

equity  ha.s  exclusive  jurisdiction.^  And  courts  of  law 
are  bound  to  respect  an  assiprnnient  of  dower  made  by 
a  court  of  equity.^  The  widow  may  join  with  the  heirs 
in  a  suit  to  have  a  contract  of  sale  set  aside  and  dower 
awarded  out  of  tlie  property;'  but  whether  she  shall 
join  her  second  husband  witli  her  in  case  she  has  mar- 
ried again,  depends  on  the  local  practice.*  The  tenant 
of  the  freeliold  alone  is  a  necessary  partj'^,*  but  all  inter- 
ested persons  are  proper  parties  ; i"  and  where  dower  ij 
to  be  allowed  out  of  several  pieces  of  property,  she  may 
either  join  all  the  tenants  in  one  suit  or  bring  a  sepa- 
rate suit  against  each,"  Tlie  husband's  administrator 
need  not  be  a  party. ''■^  Tlie  bill  should  allege  substan- 
tially the  grounds  of  lier  right. '^  If  her  right  is  admit- 
ted, tlie  court  will  proceed  at  once  to  make  an  assign- 
ment," but  if  it  is  denied,  unless  it  is  a  mere  equitable 
right,  it  must  be  first  established  at  law,'^  and  the  prac- 
tice of  equity  is  to  delay  the  case  until  this  is  done.^^ 
All  legal  defenses  are  good,^'  but  in  case  of  legal  titles 
no  equitable  defense  will  prevail, 's  except  that  of 
laches.^3  In  England  it  was  a  good  defense  that  the 
tenant  was  a  purchaser  for  value  A\ithout  notice,^  but 
that  is  not  a  defense  in  this  country,'''^  except  Avhere 
the  husband  by  his  sole  deed  can  destroy  dower.^"^  In 
case  of  mere  equitable  title  the  rule  is  diflferent.^  The 
assignment  may  be  made  by  reference  either  to  a  mas- 
ter or  to  commissioners,^^  but  in  either  case  the  report 
is  not  conclusive  on  the  court.'^  The  assignment  may 
be  made  by  metes  and  bounds,^  or  out  of  the  rents  and 
profits.^  Or,  in  case  of  a  sale  under  a  prior  lien,  out  of 
the  surplus  ;  '^^  and  in  such  cases  and  other  cases  where 
the  realty  is  changed  into  personalty,  a  gross  sum  cal- 
culated on  the  annuity  tables  may  be  awarded ;  ^  in 
some  States  this  can  be  done  only  by  the  consent  of  all 
parties,^"  or  the  third  part  may  be  invested  for  the 


§  288  DOWER.  442 

widow  to  receive  the  interest  during  her  life.^^  And 
when  the  property  has  been  redeemed  from  a  prior 
encumbrance,  the  widow  may  be  compelled  to  contrib- 
ute i)roportionally.3^  Costs  are  within  the  discretion  of 
the  court ;  ^  when  there  has  been  no  denial  of  the 
widow's  right,  she  should  pay  the  costs  ;^*  but  when 
the  defendants  have  delayed  her  or  disputed  her  rights, 
the  costs  should  be  borne  by  them.^^ 

1  Wild  V.  Wells,  1  Dick.  3 ;  Curtis,  2  Bro.  C.  C.  620 ;  2  Scribner 
Dow.  145  ;  Park  Dow.  317,  318. 

2  Mundy,4Bro.  C.  C.  294  ;  2  Ves.Jr.  122;  Strickland,  6  Beav.  77, 81. 

3  Herbert  v.  Wren,  7  Cranch,  370. 

4  2  Kent  Com.  72  ;  Powell  i'.  Monson,  3  Mason,  347,  359  ;  Herbert 
V.  Wren,  7  Cranch,  370  ;  Beavers  ti.  Smith,  11  Ala.  20  ;  Slatter  v.  Meek, 
35  Ala.  528  ;  Boyd  v.  Hunter  44  Ala.  705  ;  Menifee,  3  Kng.  9  ;  Critten- 
den, 5  Eng.  Xi'i  ;  6  Eng.  82  ;  Lavton  v.  Butler,  4  Har.  (Del.)  507  ;  Far- 
row, 1  Del.  Ch.  457  ;  Milton,  14  Fla.  .369  ;  Blair  v.  Harri.son,  11  111.  ;»J ; 
Osborne  v.  Harnie,  17  111.  535 ;  Welles  r.  Sprague,  10  Ind.  305  ;  Mar- 
tin V.  Coult,  4  Ind.  535  ;  Wall  v.  Hill,  7  Dana,  173  ;  Lawson  v.  Morton, 
6  Dana,  471  ;  Garton  v.  Bates,  4  Mon.  B.  366  ;  Wells  v.  Beall,  2  Gill  &  3. 
468 ;  Sellman  c.  Bowen.  8  Gill  &  J.  50  ;  29  Am.  Dec.  624  ;  Scott  v.  Craw- 
ford, 11  Gill  &  J.  365  ;  Darnall  v.  Hill,  12  Gill  &  J.  3s8  ;  Grove  v.  Todd, 
45  Md.  252 ;  20  Am.  Rep.  76  ;  Mildred  v.  Neil,  2  Bland.  Ch.  3iM,  3.56,  509, 
512  ;  Summons  i'.  Tongue,  3  Bland  Ch.  341,  .344  ;  Brown  ?'.  Bronson,  ;j5 
Mich.  415;  Davis,  5  Mo.  183 ;  Hartshorne,  2  N.  J.  Eq.  349  ;  Hinchman 
V.  Stiles,  9  N.  J.  Eq.  :*1,  454 ;  Rockwell  v.  Morgan,  13  N.  J.  Eq.  119,  384  ; 
Ocean  v.  Brinlev,  .34  N.  J.  Eq.  438 ;  Hazen  v.  Thurber,  4  Johns.  Ch. 
604;  Swaine  v.  Perine,  5  Johns.  Ch.  482;  9  Am.  Dec.  318;  Badgley  t'. 
Bruce,  4  Paige,  98 ;  Bell  v.  Mayor,  10  Paige,  49  ;  Campbell  r.  Murphy, 
2  Jones  Eq.  357  ;  Whitehead  v.  Clinch,  1  Murph.  128  ;  Pa.  Purd.  Dig. 
1873,  p.  5!l5;  Woodward,  2  Rich.  Eq.  23;  Gibson  v.  Marshall,  5  Rich. 
Eq.  2.>1 ;  Miller  v.  Cape,  1  Desaus.  110;  Tenn.  R,  S.  1871,  i  2407  ;  Blair 
V.  Thompson,  11  Gratt.  441. 

5  2  Scribner  Dow.  161-163. 

6  Lawrence  v.  Miller,  2  Comst.  245. 

7  Gray  v.  Sparrow,  3  Mon.  B.  110  ;  Johnson,  1  Munf.  549,  55.3. 
Contra,  Stewart  v.  Chadwick,  8  Clarke,  46.3. 

8  Potierji.  Barclay,  15  Ala.  439;  post,  H31. 

9  Blair  v.  Thompson,  11  Gratt.  441. 

10  Badgley  ?j.  Bruce,  4  Paige,  98. 

11  Barney  v.  Frowner,  9  A  la.  901  ;  Marshall  v.  Anderson,  1  Mon.  B. 
198  ;  Allen  v.  McCoy,  8  Ohio,  418, 463  ;  Boyden  v.  Lancaster,  2  Pat.  &  H. 

198. 

12  Campbell  v.  Murphy,  2  Jones  Eq.  357. 

13  2  Scribner  Dow.  1.56,  157  ;  Wells  v.  Sprague,  10  Ind.  -305  ;  Wing  v. 
Ayer,  53  Me.  465  ;  Darnall  v.  Hill,  12  Gill  &  J.  388  ;  ante,  I  249. 

14  Mundy,  2  Ves.  Jr.  122,  129  ;  Scott  v.  Crawford,  11  Gill  &  J.  365, 
366  ;  Badgley  v.  Bruce,  4  Paige,  98. 


443  DOWER.  §  239 

15  Curtis,  2  Bro.  C.  C.  6S1,  633  ;  D'Arcy  v.  Blake,  2  Schoales  &  L. 
301  ;  Muiidy,  2  Ves.  Jr.  122, 128  ;  Scott  v.  Crawford,  11  Gill  &  3.  366, 366; 
HartshoriKS  2  K.  J.  Eq.  34'.»  ;  Ocean  v.  Brinley,  34  N.  J.  Eq.  438;  1 
Koper  Husb.  &  W.  450  ;  2  Dan.  Ch.  Pr.  1105. 

16  Sellman  v.  Bowen,  8  GUI  &  J.  50,  55;  2!)  Am.  Dec.  524.  See 
Barnes  v.  Carson,  6i>  Ala.  188 ;  Eockwell  v.  Morgan,  13  N.  J.  Eq.  384  ; 
Badgley  v.  Bruce,  4  Paige,  98  ;  supra,  n,  15. 

17  2  Scrlbner  Dow.  164  ;  Shares  v.  Walters,  6  Clarke,  106. 

18  Maybury  v.  Brien,  15  Peters,  21  ;  O'Brien  v.  Elliott,  15  Me.  125  ; 
32  Am.  bee.  137  ;  Campbell  v.  Murphy,  2  Jones  Eq.  357  ;  2  Scrlbner 
Dow.  164. 

19  Rolls  !'.  Hughes,  1  Dana,-407 ;  ante,  ?  277. 

20  Williams  v.  Lambe,  3  Bro.  C.  C.  264  ;  Walwynn  v.  Lee,  fl  Ves. 
Jr.  24,  33  ;  Joyce  v.  DeMolevns,  2  Jones  &  \j.  374  ;  Gomni  v,  Parrott, 
Cora.  B.  N.  S.  47  ;  2  Lead.  Cas.  Eq.  pt.  1,  p.  43. 

21  Dick.  V.  Doughton,  1  Del.  Ch.  320  :  Ridi^way  ?'.  Newbold,  1  Har. 
(Del.)  385;  Daniell  v.  Hollingshead,  16  Ga.  I'JO;  Blair  v.  Harrison,  11 
111.  384  ;  Gano  v.  GUruth,  4  G.  Greene,  453  ;  Wailes  v.  Cooper,  24  Miss. 
208  ;  Rankin  v.  Oliphant,  9  Mo.  23:» ;  Larrowe  v.  Beam,  10  Ohio,  403  ; 
Reel  V.  Elder,  62  Pa.  St.  308 ;  Brown  v.  Wood,  6  Rich.  Eq.  155. 

22  See  ante,  \  268. 

23  Larrowe  v.  Beam,  10  Ohio,  498  ;  2  Scribner  Dow.  169. 

24  2  Dan.  Ch.  Pr.  1166  ;  2  Scribner  Dow.  170  ;  Mundv,  2  Ves.  Jr.  122, 
129  ;  Swaine  v.  Perine,  5  Johns.  Ch.  4H2,  496  ;  9  Am.  Dec.  318. 

26    Crittenden,  5  Eng.  333  ;  Gibson  v.  Marshall,  5  Rich.  Eq.  264. 

26  Gibson  v.  Marshall,  5  Rich.  Eq.  254  ;  Tod  v.  Baylor,  4  I>eigh,  438  ; 
post,  \  292. 

27  Tod  V.  Baylor,  4  Leigh,  498  ;  post,  §  293. 

28  Willett  V.  Beatty,  12  Mon.  B.  172  ;  Jennison  r.  Hapgood,  14  Pick. 
345  ;  19  Am.  Dec.  258  ;  Hartshorne,  2  N.  J.  Eq.  34.) ;  Warner  v.  Van 
Alstyne,  3  Paige,  573;  Tabele,  1  Johns.  Ch.  45;  Titus  v.  Neilson,  5 
Johns.  Ch.  4.52;  Mills  v.  Van  Voorhis,  23  Barb.  125,  126;  Hawley  t'. 
James,  6  Paige,  318  ;  Klutts,  5  Jones.Eq.  80  ;  Thompson  v.  Cochran,  7 
Humph.  72  ;  ante,  U  258,  261. 

29  Brewer  v.  Van  Arsdale,  6  Dana,  204 ;  Slmonton  v.  Gray,  34  Me. 
50;  Goodburn  ?>.  Stevens.  1  Md.  Ch.  441;  Jennison  v.  Hapgood,  14 
Pick.  ;«5 ;  19  Am.  Dec.  258  ;  Garland  v.  Crow,  2  Bail.  24  ;  post,  i  2iH. 

30  Herbert  i<.  Wren,  7  Cranch,  370  ;  Francis  v.  Garrard,  IS  Ala.  794  ; 
Lewis  V.  James,  8  Humph.  637  ;  Harrison  v.  Payne,  32  Gratt.  337  ; 
post,  i  294. 

31  Denton  v.  Nanny,  8  Barb.  618  ;  Titus  v.  Neilson, 5  Johns.  Ch.  452. 

32  Carll  v.  Butman,  7  Me.  102 ;  House.  10  Paige,  158. 164  ;  2  Scribner 
Dow.  172. 

33  2  Scribner  Dow.  173. 

34  Lucas  v.  Calcraft,  1  Bro.  C.  C.  134  ;  Curtis,  3  Bro.  C.  C.  620  ;  Hazen 
t).  Thurber,  4  Johns.  Ch.  604  ;  Swaine  v.  Perine,  5  Johns.  Ch.  483;  i) 
Am.  Dec.  318. 

35  Morgan  ?;.  Rvder,  1  Ves.  <fc  B.  20  ;  Hall  v.  James,  6  Johns.  Ch. 
258  ;  10  Am.  Dec.  328  ;  Russell  i>.  Austin,  1  Paige,  192. 

§  289.  Proof  of  right  to  dower.  —  The  widow  must 
prove  her  marriage,  and  the  seisin  and  death  of  her  hus- 


I  289  Dowrir..  444 

band.i  The  marriage  may  be  proved  by  cohabitation 
and  repute,-  and  the  time  thereof,  Avliieh  is  sometimes 
of  the  utmost  importance,  may  be  proved  by  circum- 
stantial e\adence.^  Nor  is  strict  proof  of  the  liusband's 
death  necessary ;  it  may  be  proved  as  in  other  cases.* 
As  to  seisin,  she  must  make  out  a  prima  facie  case;^ 
such  a  case  is  made  out  by  proof  that  the  defendant 
holds  under  her  husband, *  or  that  her  husband  held 
the  property  during  coverture  under  claim  of  title  and 
collected  the  rents,"  or  by  tlie  deed  to  her  husband.^ 
If  the  deed  to  the  defendant  from  the  husband  has 
other  parties  grantors,  it  is  prima  facie  presunied  that 
the  husband  was  tenant  in  common  only.^  If  the  lius- 
band  obtained  the  jiroperty  by  descent,  the  seisin  and 
death  of  the  ancestor  and  the  heirship  of  the  husband 
must  be  proved.'*  The  identity  of  the  property 
described  in  a  deod  and  the  property  in  which  dower 
is  claimed,  may  be  ijroved  by  parol." 

1  See  'J  Scribnor  Dow.  205  et  seq.  ;  ante,  {  249. 

2  Stewart  M.  &  D.{}  132,  138;  on/e,§  250. 

3  2  Scribiier  Dow.  212. 

4  See  Donelly,  8  ifon.  B.  113;  Kidder  v.  Blalsdell,  45  Me.  4r.'.  ; 
Spoars  r.  Burtu:i.  31  Miss.  ."47  ;  Jackson  v.  Claw.  H  Johns.  34(5 ;  Kice 
V.  Lumlev.  10  Oliio  St.  5  6 ;  {  hapnian  »•.  Cooper,  5  Rich.  4o2 ;  2  Scrib- 
uer  Dow.  219  ;  Stewart  il.  &  D.  H  76,  126,  127,  161,  2*4.  474. 

5  Dennis,  7  Blackf.  572  :  Knisht  v.  MorrSs,  12  Mo.  41 ;  War^  r. 
Washington,  6  Sne'les  ife  M.  7  7:  Gentry  v.  Woodson.  10  Mo.  224; 
Stevens  i:  Reed,  37  2s .  H.  4J  ;  Forrest  v.  Trammel,  1  Ball.  77. 

6  Carnall  v.  Wilson.  21  .Ark.  62;  GrifBth,  5  Har.  rDeI.1  5  ;  Davis  v. 
O'Ferrall,  4  Greene.  iSS ;  Wall  v.  Hill,  7  Dana,  172;  Thorndike  r. 
Spear,  31  Me.  91 ;  Kidder  v.  Blaisdell,  45  Me.  41-1  :  May  f.  Tillman.  1 
3Iiph.  262;  Hitchcock  v.  Harrinsrton,  6  Johns.  2\iO;  5  Am.  Doc.  22 1; 
Ward  f.  Mcintosh,  12  Ohio  St.  231 ;  Pickett  v.  Lyles,  5  S.  C.  275 ;  post, 
{290. 

7  McCuUers  v.  Haines.  3S  Ga,  195  ;  Becker  v.  Qulerg,  54  lU.  .'90 ; 
Mano  V.  Edson.  39  Me.  25  ;  Torrence  v.  Casbry,  27  Miss.  617  ;  Ran- 
dolph V.  Dors,  4  Miss.  20.1 ;  Gentry  v.  Woodpon,  10  Mo.  224  ;  Jacksou  v. 
Waltermlre,  5  Cowen,  299  ;  Reed' v.  Stevenson,  3  Rich.  66. 

8  Bolster  V.  Cushman,  M  Me.  428  ;  Carter  v.  P.arker.  28  M".  .=i09  ; 
Ward  r.  Fuller,  12  Pick.  1S5;  James  v.  Rowan,  6  .Smodes  &  M.  3.13  ; 
Griggs  c.  Smith,  12  X.  J.  L.  22  ;  Evans,  29  Pa.  St.  277. 

9  Disbiel  ?•.  Colli?r,  4  Marsh.  J.  J.  601 ;  Hamblin  v.  Bank,  19  Me. 
68;  Dolf  V.  B;isset,  15  Johns.  21. 

10  Park  Dow.  sy>  ii. 

11  Keefer  v.  Young,  2  Har.  &  J.  5.3. 


445  DOWER.  ?  290 

^  290.  Estoppel  against  defendant  to  deny  husband's  title. 
—  When  the  defendant  has  accepted  a  conveyance  of 
the  property  from  the  husband  of  the  demandant,  the 
rule  seems  to  be  that,  if  he  has  no  other  title  at  all,  he 
cannot  deny  the  husband's  seisin,  or  set  up  the  title  of 
a  third  party  ;2  but  that  he  can  show  that  the  hus- 
band's seisin  was  not  sufficient  to  permit  dower  to 
attach,^  for  example,  that  the  husband  was  a  mere 
trustee,*  or  that  the  conveyance  from  the  husband  did 
not  give  him  any  title,  but  that  he  procured  the  real 
title  from  a  third  party,^  as  where  he  took  a  mere  quit- 
claim deed  from  the  husband.^  Main'  of  the  cases 
carry  the  estoppel  much  further,  and  hold  that  he  can- 
not deny  the  husband's  title  at  all,"  or  set  up  a  better 
title  in  himself  from  a  third  party  ;*  but  this  is  objec- 
tionable because  an  estoppel  to  be  effectual  must  be 
mutual,^  and  because  the  estoppel  in  this  case  is  based 
on  the  acceptance  of  an  estate  from  the  liusband,  and, 
if  the  husband's  title  Avas  not  a  good  one,  no  estate 
passed. 1"  But  no  case  allows  the  tenant  to  deny  the 
husband's  title  unless  he  himself  liolds  under  a  better 
one.'^  In  any  case  the  widow  makes  out  a  prima  fade 
case  by  showing  that  the  tenant  holds  a  conveyance 
from  her  husband.^- 

1  2  Scribner  T>ow.  231 ;  Park  Bow.  41 ;  ITonley  v.  Webb,  5  Madd. 
407  ;  Bancroft  v.  White,  1  C'aiues,  18.5 ;  Chapman  v.  Shroeder,  10  Ga. 
321  ;  Owen  v.  Rol)bins,  19  111.  54');  Davis  v.  0'Fi'rrall,4  Greene,  ."^oS; 
Gullv  V.  Rav,  IS  Mon.  B.  107;  Kimball,  2  M  •.  236  ;  Xason  v.  Allen,  6 
5Ie.  24:i ;  Harris  v.  Gardner,  10  Me.  383  ;  .Smith  v.  Ingalls,  13  Me. 
2*4  ;  Thorndike  r.  Spear,  31  Me.  91 ;  Lewis  v.  Meserve,  61  Me.  374  ; 
Wedge  V.  Moore,  6  Cush.  8;  May  v.  Tillman,  1  Mich.  2fi2  ;  Randolph 
V.  Dors,  4  Miss.  20.5  ;  Thompson  v.  Bovd,  22  N.  J.  L.  .543  ;  Montgomery 
1'.  Brnere,  .5  X.  J.  L  865  ;  Moore  v.  Esty,  5  X.  H.  47J ;  Jewell  v.  Har- 
rington, IDWend.  471,  474;  Brown  v.  Potter,  17  Wend.  ]fi4  ;  Davis  r. 
Barrow,  12  Wend.  65;  .Sherwood  v.  Vandenburgh,  2  Hill,  203  ;  Hitch- 
cock ?'.  Harrington,  6  Johns.  290  ;  5  \va.  De?.  22j  ;  Norwood  ?•.  Mor- 
row. 4  Dev.  *  B.  442  ;  Love  v.  Y.ites,  4  Dov.  &  B.  364  ;  Shaw  v. 
Galbraith,  7  Pa.  St.  Ill;  Pickett  r.  Lvles,  5  S.  r.  275;  Pledger  v. 
Ellerbee,  6  Rich.  266  ;  60  Am.  Dec.  123  ;  iGayle  v.  Price,  5  Rich.  .5J5. 

2  Carter  v.  Hallahan,  61  Ga.  314,  322 ;  Evans,  20  Pa.  St.  277. 

3  P'oster  ?■.  Dwinel,  40  Me.  44,  47.  .s.  P.,  Edmondson  7'.  Welsh,  27 
Ala.  578  ;  Shelton  v.  Carroll,  16  Ala,  143  ;  EJmondsoa  v.  Montiigu j,  14 

H.  &  W.  —  3S. 


2§  291-292  DOWER.  446 

Ala.  370  ;  Blakeney  v.  Ferguson,  20  Ark.  547  ;  Crittendon,  6  Eng.  82 ; 
Owen  V.  Robbins,  19  111.  .545  ;  Gully  v.  Ray,  18  Mo;i.  B.  107  ;  Gammon 
V.  P'reemaii,  31  Me.  24:?,  246  ;  Small  i\  Proctor,  15  Mass.  4.5;  Moore  v. 
Estv.  5  N.  H.  479;  Hutchins  r.  Carlton,  1')  N.  II.  4'^7  ;  Hill,  4  Barb. 
419,  429  ;  Averill  v.  Wilson,  413  Barb.  189  ;  Plantt  v.  Payne,  2  Bail.  81J. 

4  Plantt  V.  Payne,  2  Bail.  810. 

5  .See  Blieht  v.  Rochester, 7  Wheat.  .535;  Dashiel  r.  Collier, 4  Marsh. 
J.  J.  601  ;  Smith  v.  Ingalls,  13  Me.  384,  287  ;  Otis  v.  Parsliley,  10  X.  II. 
40'i ;  Sparrow  i'.  Kingm.an,  1  Conist.  242  ;  12  Barb.  201  ;  Coakloy  v. 
Perry,  3  Ohio  St.  344  ;  Gardner  v.  Greene,  5  R.  I.  104. 

6  Sparrow  i'.  Kingman,  1  Corost.  242  ;  Fariiumy.Loomis,  2  Oreg. 
29,  31. 

7  Laboree,  33  Mp.  343  ;  Brown  v.  Potter,  17  Wend.  164  ;  Jewell  v. 
Harrington,  19  Wenci.  471,  474  ;  Norwood  v.  Morrow,  4  Dev.  ife  B.  442. 
Consult  cases  sujn-a,  n.  1. 

8  Jewell  V.  Harrington,  19  Wend.  471,  474 ;  supra,  n.  7. 

9  .Sherwood  v.  Vandenburgh,  2  Hill,  303  ;  Osterhort  v.  Shoemaker, 
3  Hill,  513. 

10  Sparrow  ■ii.  Kingman,  12  Barb.  201. 

11  Kidder  v.  Blaisdell,  45  Me.  461 ;  ante,  I  289. 

12  Ante,  ?  289,  n.  6. 

g  291.  The  widow's  right  to  dower  in  the  mansion  house. 
— At  eoiniuon  law  the  widow  may  remain  in  the  family 
home  or  mansion  of  her  husband  for  forty  days  after 
his  "death,  and  similar  provisions  exist  in  the  statutes 
of  many  of  the  States  :  ^  but  there  was  no  right  to  dower 
in  this  property  at  common  law.^  Such  right  has  been 
very  generally  given  in  the  United  States,^  and  is 
especially  regarded  in  the  homestead  laws.* 

1  Discussed  Stewart  M.  &  D.  J  4.59. 

2  Denaugh,  19  Gratt.  536  ;  Perk.  J  4.56. 

3  See  Ark.  Dig.  1874,  {\  2228,  2229  ;  111.  R.  S.  1880,  p.  428,  ?  27. 

4  Discussed  post,  ??  321-330. 

I  292.  Assignment  by  metes  and  bounds.  —  Whenever 
the  property  in  wliich  the  widow  is  entitled  to  dower  i.s 
capable  of  division,  dower  must  be  ret  oft'  by  metes 
and  bounds.i  Tliis  was  the  rule  at  common  law,  but 
its  application  lias  iiroved  so  troublesome  that  such  as- 
signments are  not  common,  and  statutes  have  provided 
for  other  means  of  giving  a  widow  a  fair  tliird  for  her 
life.2    "When  an  assignment  bv  metes  and  bounds  is 


447  DOWER.  §  292 

about  to  be  made,  the  tenant  need  no!,  have  notice 
unless  this  is  required  by  statute.^  The  officer,  sheriff, 
or  conimissionei's  who  makes  the  assignment  is  a  mere 
ministerial  olficer,*  and  has  no  power  excejit  such  as  is 
given  him  b}' tlie  writ;^  he  must  strictly  conform  to 
the  law  ;  he  cannot  assign  a  portion  of  the  lands  in  fee 
in  lieu  of  dower  in  the  rest,' except  by  the  consent  of 
all  parties,^  nor  can  he  give  the  Avidow  rights  of  fire- 
bote,  etc.,  in  part  of  the  property  not  assigned  for  her 
dower.3  His  return  should  report  that  he  has  made 
the  assignment  by  metes  and  bounds, 'o  and  should 
describe  with  reasonable  definiteness  the  proi:)erty  as- 
signed." If  he  fails  or  refuses  to  act  another  may  bo 
apijointed,^"  and  if  he  acts  vexatiously  or  maliciously, 
as  where  he  chalked  off  a  third  of  each  room  in  a 
house,"  he  may  be  punished.^'  In  making  the  di- 
vision quantity  is  not  to  be  considered  alone,  but  the 
value  and  productiA' eness  of  the  land  also  ;  '^  and  such 
a  proportion  of  the  i^roperty  should  be  assigned  to  the 
widow  as  is  capable  of  producing  one  third  as  much 
income  as  the  whole  income  which  tlie  whole  property 
could  produce.'®  How  far  improvements  made  since 
the  husband's  death  or  alienation  are  to  be  included  in 
such  estimate  is  elsewhere  discussed. >'  The  widow  has 
the  right  to  have  one  third  of  each  tract  assigned,  if 
there  are  several  tracts;'^  but  in  many  States,  if  the 
tracts  are  held  by  one  heir,  devisee,  or  alienee,  the 
whole  assignment  may  be  made  out  of  any  one  tract, 
for  no  one  could  be  thereby  injured ; '*  and  there  are 
some  cases  which  hold  that  the  husband's  alienee  for 
value  without  notice  has  the  riglit  to  compel  an  assign- 
ment of  the  whole  dower  out  of  the  lands  given  or  de- 
vised by  the  husband  or  descended  from  him.™  The 
assignment  need  not  ordinarily  include  the  dwelling- 
house,^'  thougli  dower  may  be  assigned  in  a  house  by 


?  292  DOWEK.  448 

allowing  the  demandant  certain  rooms,  with  tlie  right 
to  use  in  common  tlie  stairways  and  halls,  etc.'''^  If 
dower  exists  in  leasehold  estates  by  statute,  it  is  as- 
signed just  as  it  is  in  fees.'-'^  Dower  is  assigned  in  es- 
tates in  common  by  metes  and  bounds  if  they  have 
been  partitioned  before  the  husband's  doatli,^'  or  tlie 
husband  has  conveyed  his  interest  to  his  co-tenant,^ 
but  otlierwise  in  common. '■^^  j^  tlio  case  of  mines,^' 
mills,-^  ferries,^  etc.,  assignment  by  metes  and  bounds 
is  not  practicable,  and  the  Avidow  may  bo  allowed  the 
whole  for  one  third  of  the  time,  or  one  third  of  the 
annual  rental  for  her  life.^" 

1  Pierce  v.  Williams,  3  N.  J.  T,.  70:);  Boiinor  v.  'Evans,  3  Pa.  4,'j4 ; 
Peik.  S  -114  ;  Park  i)o\v. ;;.")!  ;  2  .ScribiuT  Dow.  .'isl  ;  4  Kent  Com.  C2. 

2  .See  post,  I  233,  and  statutes  of  different  States. 

."?  Ridgway  v.  Newhold,  1  Har.  (Del.)  .'iS.'; ;  Watklns,  !)  .Tolins.  215  ; 
Beaty  v.  Hearst,  1  McMull.  31.  See  Ga.  11.  C.  1878,  U  4(M1-J048;  R.  1. 
K.  S.  1SS2,  p.  038,  I  12. 

4  1  Roll.  Abr.  038,  pi.  .3.5. 

.5  Stewart  v.  Blease,  5  S.  C.  433  ;  Moore  v.  WjiUer,  4  Hand.  418. 

0  Durham  v.  Mulkey,  50  111.  91. 

7  Wilhelm.  4  Md.  Cli.  :i."0 ;  .Simpson  v.  Ale.xander,  0  Cold.  019. 

8  Carriell  v.  Bronsoii,  0  Clarke,  471 ;  ante,  I  285. 

9  .Tones,  Busb.  177. 

10  Pierce  v.  AVilliams,  3  X.  J.  L.  703  ;  Jones  v.  Fields,  5  TTelslc.  391  ; 
Spain  V.  Adams,  3  Tenn.  Ch.  31i) ;  2  Scribner  Dow.  5S2. 

11  Howard  r.  Cavendish,  Cro.  .Tac.  021,  pi.  12  ;  Paimer,  204  ;  1  Roper 
H.  <fe  W.  31)4  ;  Den  v.  Abingdon,  Dong.  470  ;  Teiiiiv  v.  Durraiit,  1  Barn. 
&  Aid.  40  ;  Adams  v.  Barron,  13  Ala.  205  ;  Myer  v.  Pfeffer,  50  III.  485; 
•Stevens,  3  Dana,  371  ;  Voung  v.  Gregory,  40  Me.  425  ;  Pierce  v.  Wil- 
liams, 3  N.  J.  L.  709  ;  Patch  v.  Keeler,  27  Vt.  252. 

12  McCormick  v.  Taylor,  5  Ind.  436 ;  Lenox  v.  Livingston,  47  Mo.  256. 

13  Abingdon,  Palmer,  205. 

14  2  Scribner  Dow.  5S2  ;  I>ark  Dow.  272. 

15  Coates  v.  Choever,  1  Cowen,  400,  470.  S.  P.,  .Scammon  v.  ramp- 
bell,  75  III.  223;  Walker,  2  JU.  App.  418  ;  Smith,  5  Dana,  179;  I.awson 
r.  Morton,  G  Dana,  471  ;  Tavlor  v.  I.usk,  7  Marsh.  ,1.  J.  030  ;  Carter  v. 
Parker,  28  Mo.  509  ;  Leonard,  4  Mass.  5:«  ;  Rilev  v.  Bates,  40  Mo.  408 ; 
Strickler,  00  Mo.  405;  Macknet,  24  N.  .1.  Eq.  449;  Watkins,  9  Johns. 
245  ;  McDaniel,  3  Trod.  01 ;  Stiner  r.  Cawthorne,  4  Dev.  &  B.  .Wl  ; 
Oillgartner  v.  Gebhart,  25  Ohio  St.  557 ;  Gibson  v,  Marshall,  C  Rich. 
Eq.  210. 

16  Conner  r.  Shepherd,  15  Mass.  164, 167. 

17  Post,  'i  29.5. 


449  DOWER.  §  293 

18  Litt.  ?  3f. ;  Hill  v.  Mitchell,  5  Ark.  OOS  ;  Morrill  t.  Menifee,  5  Ark. 
629;  Schnebl)s,2(illl.  IKi;  O'Ferrall  (^  Simplot,4Iowa,  381 ;  Carriell  r. 
Bronson.fi  Clarke,  471  ;  Wood  i>.  Lee,  .5  Men.  .50  ;  French  v.  Pratt,  27 
Me.  :<81  ;  French  v.  Peters,  Xi  Me.  396  ;  Jones  v.  Brewer,  1  Pick.  314  ; 
Scott,  1  Bay,  504  ;  1  Am.  Dec.  G25. 

IS  2  S"ril)MPr  Dow.  003;  Doe  v.  Gwinnell,  1  Q.  B.  6S2  ;  Coulter  v. 
Holland,  2  liar.  (Del.)  :TO;  Milton,  14  Flu.  :<(■. I ;  Ga.  Code  1S73,  §  1767; 
Rowland  v.  Carroll,  81  111.  224  ;  Peyton  v.  JclDics,  50  111.  14:!;  Reeves, 
,54  111.  :«2  ;  Scaninion  r.  Campbell,  7-5  111.  22;i ;  Ky.  R.  S.  1881,  p.  831  ; 
Fosdick  V.  Gooding,  1  Me.  30;  10  Am.  Dec.  25;  Boyd  v.  Carlton,  0.) 
Me.  200  ;  Cook  v.  Fisk,  Walk.  (Miss.)  423;  Thomas  7'.'Hpsse,.34  Mo.  13; 
EUicott  V.  Mosier,  1 1  Barh.  .574  ;  Ohio  R.  S.  18S0,  ?  5710 ;  R.  I.  R.  S.  1882, 
p.  637;  Tenn.  R.  S.  1871,  i  2403  ;  Anderson  v.  Henderson,  5  W.  Va.  182. 

20  Grlgly  v.  Cox,  1  Vcs.  Sr.  517;  Lawson  v.  Morton,  6  Dana,  471 ; 
Wood  V.  Keyes,  C  Paige,  478. 

21  Taylor  v.  Lusk,  7  Marsh.  J.  J.  6.36  ;  ante,  f  291. 

22  Palmer,  264  ;  Perk.  ?  ,342  ;  Doe  v.  Gwinnell,  1  Q.  B.  6S2 ;  Lymmes 
1'.  Drew,  21  Pick.  278  ;  White  v.  Story,  2  Hill,  .543;  Watkins,  9  Johns. 
245;  J'arkes  r.  Ilardey,  4  Bradf.  15;  Stewart  v.  Smith,  20  Barb.  167; 
Patch  ?'.  Keeler,  27  Vt.  252. 

23  Rankin  v.  Oliphant, !)  Mo.  239. 

24  Rank  v.  Hanna,  6  Ind.  20 ;  Lloyd  v.  Conover,  25  N.  J.  L.  47. 

25  Blossom,  9  Allen,  2.54. 

26  Ri  Igwav  V.  Newbold,  1  Har.  (Del.")  385;  Potter  v.  Wheeler,  13 
Mass.  M-i ;  Wilkinson  v.  Parish,  3  Paige,  053  ;  2  Scribner  Dow.  5:i0. 

27  Hoby,  1  Vern.  218;  2  Ch.  Cas.  160  ;  Sfoiighton  r.  Leigh,  1  Taunt. 
402;  Lenfers  i\  Henke,  73  111.  405;  24  Am.  ]{  ■)).  2ii:l  ;  Moore  v.  Rollins, 
45  Me.  4113  ;  Billings  v.  Taylor.  10 Pick.  400  ;  2ii  A  in.  IH'C.  533  ;  Rof^kwcll 
V.  Morgan,  13  N.  J.  Eq.  384,  3><9  ;  Coates  v.  Cheever,  1  Cowen,  400. 

23    Hyzer  v.  Stoker,  3  Mon.  B.  117 ;  Smith,  5  Dana,  179. 

29  Ferry  v.  Stevens,  3  Dana,  371. 

30  2  Scribner  Dow.  5:;i  ;  Park  Dow.  253 ;  cases  cited  sunrn,  notes 
27-29.    See  })o.it,  i  23.3. 

§  293.  Assignmont  ia  rents  and  profits.  ^Whenever  the 
property  i.s  incori)oreal,i  or  i.s  in  its  nature  incapable  of 
fair  division  by  metes  and  bounds, ^  the  widow  may  be 
allowed  one  third  of  the  actual  or  estimated  rents  and 
profits  during  her  life.^  So  that  altliough  a  rent  can  bo 
given  in  lieu  of  dower  when  the  property  is  divisible, 
onl}'^  by  consent  of  all  parties,*  when  tlie  property'  is  not 
divisible  but  its  value  consists  in  its  rents  and  profits 
as  a  wliole,  as  in  the  case  of  a  tavern,^  amill,''  a  forry,^ 
a  mine,"  a  rent  may  be  given  as  dower,  distrainable  of 
common  right.^  If  the  proi^erty  is  not  actuall}-  loa.sed, 
it  is  very  difficult  to  determine  where  its  rents  and  pro- 


§  293  DOWER.  450 

fits  arc  ;  i"  the  j'early  interest  on  its  market  value  is  by 
no  means  always  commensurate  with  its  actual  produc- 
tive capacity.'!  Generally,  one  third  of  tlie  net  actual 
product  of  the  land,  whatever  that  may  be,  less  a  fair 
allowance  for  the  rental  of  such  improvements  as  the 
wife  is  not  entitled  to  dower  in,!^  is  allowed ;  ^^  but  in 
otlier  cases  one  third  of  the  legal  interest  on  the  esti- 
mated market  value  of  the  lands,  less  such  part  as  is 
derived  from  trees,  etc.,  tliereupon,  in  which,  on 
account  of  her  liability  for  waste,  a  widow  has  no  inter- 
est,i'  is  allowed.'^  If  the  lands  have  been  sold  under  a 
prior  right  to  dower,'*  as  where  they  have  been  sold 
under  an  antenuptial  judgment,'^  or  a  mortgage  prior 
to  dower,'^  or  a  vendor's  lien,'^  or  for  partnership  pur- 
poses,2"  or  in  partition  proceedings,"'  and  tlie  wife  lias 
therefore  dower  onU^  in  the  fund  otherwise  distributa- 
ble to  her  husband  or  his  assigns,^  it  is  the  practice 
either  to  allow  lier  a  gross  sum,  or  the  interest  for  life 
on  one  third.^  But  where  she  consented  to  a  sale  after 
her  husband's  death  on  the  understanding  that  she 
should  be  allowed  for  her  dower,  it  was  held  that  the 
allowance  should  be  made  according  to  tlie  estimated 
rents  and  profits  of  the  lands,  and  not  according  to  the 
price  brought  at  the  sale.-' 

1  2  Scribner  Dow.  039  ;  Park  Dow.  2o3. 

2  2  Scribnpr  Dow.  639  ;  Chase,  1  Bland.  20fi,  233  :  17  Am.  Deo.  277. 
Oft-»n  hv  statute:  111.  R.  S.  1H80,  p.  42.S  ;  Me.  R.  S.  1S71,  p.  759 ;  Mass. 
P.  S.  1882,  p.  7-12  ;  Mo.  R.  S.  1879,  J?  2215,  221C  ;  M.  H.  R.  8.  1878.  p.  474. 

3  Discussed  2  Scribner  Dow.  63'J,  et  seq. ;  cases  cited  infra. 

4  M'hite  V.  Story,  2  Hill,  543,  549. 

5  Chase,  1  Bland,  200,233  ;  17  Am.  Dec.  277. 
0    Smith,  5  Dana,  173  ;  ante,  I  292. 

7  Stevens,  3  Dana,  371  ;  ante,  ?  202. 

8  Rockwell  r.  Morgan,  13  X.  J.  Eq.  384,  389  ;  -ante,  I  292. 

9  Chase,  1  Bland,  203,  233  ;  ante,  ?  232  ;  17  Am.  Dec.  277. 

10  See  Williams,  3  Bland,  186,  278  ;  2  Scribner  Dow.  6.39  et  xerj. 

11  Williams,  3  Bland.  l.SG,  278,  273  ;  Addison  v.  Bowie,  2  Bland,  613. 

12  Lewis  V.  James,  S  Humph.  537 ;  post,  I  295. 


451  DOWER.  2  294 

13  Hyzor  v.  Stoker,  3  Mon.  B.  117  ;  Williams,  3  Bland,  186,  212,  243, 
278,  229  ;  Riley  v.  Clamorgan,  l.i  Mo.  331  ;  Atkins  v.  Kron,  8  Irecl.  Eq. 
1 ;  U.  S.  V.  Dunseth,  10  OUlo,  18 ;  Hillgartner  v.  Gebhart,  25  Ohio  St. 
557. 

14  Bishop,  13  Law  J.  Ch.  N.  S.  302 ;  5  Jur.  931 ;  Cassonave  v.  Brooke, 
3  Bland,  -U7,  2SS  ;  J£arker  v.  Christy,  5  N.  J.  L.  717. 

15  Beavers  v.  Smith,  U  Ala.  20 ;  "Wood  v.  Morgan,  56  Ala.  .S97  ;  Van 
Gelder  v.  Post,  2  Edw.  Ch.  577  ;  Hale  v.  James,  6  Johns.  Ch.  258  ;  10 
Am.  Dec.  328. 

16  See  ante,  U  258,  280. 

17  Eobbins,  8  Blackf.  174  ;  ante,  ?  258. 
IS    Tabele,  1  Johns.  Ch.  45  ;  ante,  §  261. 

13  Thompson,  1  Jones,  430  ;  ante,  U  259,  261. 

20  Goodburn  v.  Stevens,  5  Gill,  1 ;  ante,  U  257,  280. 

2'  Weaver  v.  Gregg,  6  Ohio  St.  547,  550,  552  ;  ante,  §  280. 

22  The  surplus  usually :  Ante,  U  257,  261,  2S0. 

2J  Williams,  3  Bland,  186,  263  ;  citations  snpra,  notes  16-21. 

24  Williams,  3  Bland,  ISO,  242,  243,  278,  279. 

I  294.  Assignment  of  gross  sum  in  liou  of  dower. — 
"When  dower  is  not  assigned  out  of  the  lands  them- 
selves,^  or  out  of  the  actual  rents  and  i^rofits  thereof,^ 
interest  on  the  estimated  value  of  the  proportion  which 
might  have  been  assigned  as  dower  is  sometimes  given, 
as  have  been  seen,^  or  the  value  of  the  widow's  life 
estate  may  be  calculated  and  given  her  at  once  in  a 
gross  sum.*  This  was  rarely  done  in  England  and  the 
English  books  contain  little  on  the  subject;^  but  it  is 
quite  common  in  the  United  States.^  Strictly,  a  court 
has  no  right  to  award  a  gross  sum  in  lieu  of  dower ; ' 
still,  it  is  said  that  a  court  of  equity  has  this  right  and 
may  exercise  its  discretion  to  award  a  sum  in  lieu  of 
dower  whenever  the  lands  are  converted  into  person- 
alty under  its  jurisdiction;^  and  this  mode  of  award- 
ing is  provided  for  frequently  by  statute,^  and  may 
always  be  follov-ed  by  the  consent  of  all  parties.i*'  It  is 
not  infrequent  that  the  parties  agree  that  the  widow 
shall  have  the  value  of  her  dower  paid  to  her  in  a  gross 
sum,  and  refer  tlie  matter  to  equity  for  the  sole  pur- 
pose of  having  the  said  value  estimated-'^    In  estimat- 


\  29j  dower.  452 

ing  this  value,  tlie  court  considers  the  chances  of  life  in 
the  widow  and  the  probable  value  of  her  life  interest  ."^^ 
Many  different  annuity  tables  have  been  in  use,  and 
rougli  formula  for  the  determination  of  the  value  of 
dower,  an  interesting  history  of  which  is  given  in  Wil- 
liams' Case  by  Chancellor  Biand,'^  and  which  are  dis- 
cussed in  many  cases,"  but  which  cannot  be  discussed 
herein. 

1  AnteA^Sfl. 

2  Ante,  \  293. 

.3  Hale  V.  James,  6  Johns.  Ch.  2.13,  260  ;  10  Am.  Bee.  328  ;  Gove  v. 
Cathei-,  ii  111.  6.>1 ;  ante,  \  29JS. 

4  Williams,  i  Bland,  1.S6,  278,  279  ;  cases  cited  infra. 

5  Mole  V.  Smith,  1  Jacob  &  W.  STiS. 

6  Williams,  3  Bland,  1*5,  2&4. 

7  Bonner  v.  Peterson,  44  III.  253. 

8  Brewer  >•.  Van  Arsdale,  6  Bana,  254  :  VwUiams,  3  Bland,  186,  221; 
Dorsey  i-.  Smith,  7  Har.  &  J.  3.53,  3G6  ;  Atldns  v.  Kroa,  8  Ired.  Eq.  1. 

9  HiETbie  v.  Westlake,  14  X.  Y.  3Sl ;  Mentzer  v.  Menor,  8  Watts, 
296 ;  Summers  v.  Donuell,  7  Heisk.  o6o  ;  Wis.  K.  S.  187S,  a  :?514,  38*5. 

10  Herbert  v.  Wren,  7  Cranch,  .370,  380  ;  Hill  v.  Mitchell,  5  Ark.  60«i : 
Francis  i'.  Garrard,  1^  Ala.  7:>4 ;  Francisco  r.  Hendricks,  28  III.  64  ; 
Mulford  V.  Hisrs,  13  X.  J.  £q.  13;  McLoughUn,  20  X.  J.  Eq.  IHO  ; 
Mathews  v.  Durzee,  45  Barb.  6d  ;  Fulton,  8  Abb.  N.  C.  210  ;  Harrison 
I'.  Payne,  .32  Gratt.  387 ;  BUur  v.  Thompson,  11  Gratt.  441. 

11  Sherrard,  33  Ala.  4S.S  ;  Smiley,  1  Dana,  93  ;  Simouton  r.  Gray. .31 
M.i.  .50  ;  Houghton  v.  KapgooJ,  13  Pick.  1.54  ;  Hazon  v.  Thurber,  4 
Johns.  Ch.  604;  Hale  v.  James,  6  Johr.s.  Ch.  263;  10  Am.  Dec.  328; 
Pollard  V.  Anderwood,  4  Hen.  &  M.  4.iJ. 

12  2  Scribner  Dow.  ch.  24.  For  tables,  sse  2  Scribner  Dow. 
Append.  ;  7iJ  Gx  Appand.  ;  Brown  v.  Bro::isou,  35  Mich.  415  ;  Gravigiie 
V.  McCJlare's  '•  Dower  and  Curtesy  Tables." 

13  Williams,  3  Bland,  186. 

14  Pvle  V.  Brown,  6  Ex.  2a5 :  Thistlewood,  19  Ves.  Jr.  2.i0  ;  Sher- 
rard, .3;5  Ala.  4^^;  McHenrv  r.  Yokura,  27  111.  160;  Hazeling  v.  Hut- 
saa,  18  Ind.  481  ;  Alexender  v.  Bradlev,  3  Bush,  667  ;  Rich,  7  Bush,  .53; 
Williams,  3  Bland,  18«,  242,24:i  :  Md.  R.  C.  1878,  p.  6ol  ;  Dorsev  r.  Smith, 
7  Har.  &  J.  :«> ;  Abercrombie  v.  Riddle,  3  Md.  Ch.  .320  ;  Estabrook  r. 
Hapgood,  10  Mass.  31.3,  315;  Brown  r.  Bronson,  i5  Mich.  415  ;  Cronk- 
right  r.  Hanlenbeck,  25  N.  J.  Eq.  .513,  515  ;  Mulford  v.  Hiera,  13  X.  J. 
Eq.  13 ;  McLoughlia,  20  X.  J.  Eq.  IW  ;  Sauter  v.  X.  Y.  66  X.  Y.  .V) ; 
Jackson  v.  Edwards,  7  Paige,  386,  408;  Atkins  r.  Kro:i,  8  Irod.  Eq. 
1 ;  Shippen,  80  Pa.  St.  39L 

\  295.  "Widow's  right  to  dower  in  improvements. — 
When,  before  assignment,  improvements  are  made,  the 
widow  is  entitled  to  the  benefit  thereof  in  case  the  hus- 


453  DOWER.  I  295 

band  died  seized,  but  not  if  he  had  aliened  the  lands 
before  his  death.  There  seems  to  be  little  reason  for 
the  distinction,  but  it  exists  nearly  everywhere. ^ 

1.  As  against  the  heir.  As  against  the  husband's  heir 
or  devisee,  it  is  Avell  settled  that  the  widow  is  entitled 
to  dower  in  the  land  as  it  stands  when  dower  is 
assigned  including  all- improvements  ;^  though  there 
are  some  States  where  this  rule  has  been  changed  by 
statute.* 

2.  As  against  the  alienee.  As  against  the  husband's 
alienee,  the  same  rule  prevails  in  England  ;^  but  in  the 
United  States  generally,^  improvements  made  after  the 
husband  has  aliened  the  property  are  excluded  in 
assigning  dower,'  and  either  unimproved  parts  are 
assigned  or  less  is  included  in  the  assignment.^  This 
is  true  whether  the  imjirovements  have  been  made 
before  or  after  the  husband's  death,'  whether  the 
alienee  have  notice  of  the  claim  for  dower  or  not.'*  and 
oven  in  a  case  Avhere  the  husband  had  deeded  the  prop- 
erty to  a  relative  as  a  gift  and  had  thereafter  made  the 
improvements  thereu^wn  himself.^'  A  jaurchaser  at 
execution  has  in  this  respect  the  same  rights  as  a  vol- 
untary -ilienee  of  the  husband's.^^  The  value  of  the 
property  is  therefore  estimated  as  of  the  time  of  the 
alienation.  The  time  of  the  alienation  is  determined 
by  the  date  of  the  deed  if  an  absolute  deed :  '^  by  the 
da.e  of  the  passing  of  the  equity  of  redemption  from 
the  husband  in  case  of  a  mortgage, i*  for  the  widow  has 
the  right  to  improvements  made  by  the  husband  after 
mortgage  but  before  foreclosure ;  '^  by  the  date  of  the 
bond  of  conveyance  in  accordance  A\ith  wliich  the  title 
has  been  given. '^  The  fact  of  imiorovements  must  be 
specially  pleaded,^"  but  not  in  bar ;  '*  and  the  value, 
etc.,  thereof  may  be  determined,  in  accordance  with 
different  practice,  by  the  sheriftV'  or  commissioners,™ 


2  235  DOWER.  454 

or  by  an  issue  before  a  jury,-'  or  by  a  writ  of   in- 
quiry.^'' 

3.  What  are  improvements.  Mere  repairs  are  not  im- 
provements ;  ^  but  iilatting  the  land  and  prciJaring  it 
for  a  depot  are ;  '-'*  so  are  crops  sown,'^^  within  the  mean- 
ing of  this  section ;  so  is  everything  added  by  the 
money  or  sldll  of  the  alienee  ;  ^^  but  no  improvement  in 
value  due  to  improvement  of  adjacent  lands  is,^^  or  to 
the  general  prospei'ity,'^  or  to  accretions, ^9  or  to  any 
extrinsic  cause ;  ^^  tliough  in  some  States  increase  of 
value  from  whatever  cause  is  regarded  as  an  improve- 
mcnt,^'  within  the  moaning  of  tliis  section. 

4.  Depreciation.  If  tlie  property  has  diminished  in 
value  before  assignment,  as  against  the  heir,  dower  is 
assigned  according  to  its  value  at  the  time  of  the  as- 
signment,^- unless  the  heir  has  been  guilty  of  waste, 
in  which  case  he  is  liable  in  damages.^^  But  if  im- 
provements have  burnt  down  and  tlie  heir  has  re- 
ceived the  insurance  money,  the  widow  is  entitled  to 
a  i^ortion  thereof.^'  As  against  tlie  alienee,  the  value  of 
the  land  is  taken  at  the  time  of  assignment  so  far  as 
diminution  has  been  due  to  natural  causes,^^  or  to  waste 
before  the  husband's  death  j-**^  but  tlio  widow  must  be 
allowed  her  waste  after  the  husband's  death. ^''  In  New 
York,  however,  dower  is  assigned  according  to  the 
value  of  tlio  property  at  the  time  of  the  alienation.^8 

1  Powell  V.  Monson.  3  Mason,  347,  365-367. 

2  Powell  V.  Monson,  3  Mason,  347,  365,  363  ;  Price  v.  Ilobbs,  47  Md. 
35:),  3S6. 

3  Price  v.  Hobbs,  47  Md.  35;>,  3S6.  S.  P.,  PowoH  v.  Monson,  3  Mason, 
347,  3G5,  36.);  Way,  42  Conn.  .sJ  ;  irustinl,  34  C<inii.  4,-iS  ;  Ilalston,  3 
Greene,  53! ;  Chase,  1  Ulanrl,  'JUii,  2:iJ  ;  17  Am.  Dee.  i;77  ;  Walsh  v.  Wil- 
son, 131  Mass.  535;  C'atli'i  v.  Ware,!)  Ma.s.s.  218,  '221  ;  6  Am.  Dec.  66; 
McGeliee,  VI  Miss,  'il ;  Humjihrey  !•.  Phinney,  2  Johns.  484  ;  Hale  r. 
James,  6  Johns.  Cli.  L'.js,  260  ;  10  Am.  Dec.  32S  ;  Larrowe  v.  Beam,  10 
Ohio,  4!).S;  Thomps<in  v.  Morrow,  5  Serg.  &  R.  283,2^0;  9  Am.  Dec. 
35S  ;  Plummer  r.  John,son,  15  S.  0.  158,  160. 

4  See  Kv.  R.  S.  ISSl,  p.  530  ;  N.  Y.  R.  S.  18S2,  p.  2190  ;  Walker  v. 
Schuyler,  10  Wend.  4S4. 


455  DOWER.  1 295 

5  Doe  V.  Gwinncll.  1  Q.  E.  6S2;  41  Eng.  C.L.  723,735;  2  Scribuer 
Dow.  C04  ;  Park  Dow.  2^5. 

G    But  see  Va.  Code  1S73,  p.  85.5,  §  11. 

7  Summ'^rs  v.  Babb,  13  III.  483,  4S5.  S.  P.,  Powell  v.  Monson,  3 
Mason,  347,  'So7  ;  Barney  v.  Frowncr,  9  Ala.  901 ;  Beavers  v.  Smitli,  U 
Ala.  20  ;  Spriiigle  v.  Shields,  17  Ala.  2:!5 ;  Francis  v.  Garru;vl,  IS  Al.i. 
7J4 ;  Wood  V.  Morgan,  56  Ala.  397  ;  Stooliy,  8J  111.  40,  42 ;  Heammon  v. 
Campbell,  75  111.  223;  Wilson  v.  Oatman,2  Blac::f.  2:3;  Smith  v. 
Addleman,  5  Blackf.  406;  Throp  v.  Joh:;son,  3  Ind.  3-13;  Carrioll  v. 
Bronson,6  Clarke,  471;  Felch,  52  Iowa,  503,  505;  Dashiel  v.  Collier,  4 
Marsh.  J.  J.  601 ;  Waters  v.  Gooch,  6  Marsh.  J.  J.  e^.r, ;  22  Am.  Dec.  103  ; 
T.aylor  v.  Brodiek,  1  Dana,  345 ;  Mayhoney  v.  Young,  3  Dana,  583  ; 
I^awson  V.  Mort  in,  6  D.ana,  471 ;  Wall,  7  Dana,  172  ;  Mosher,  15  Mo. 
371  ;  Hobbs  V.  Ilarvoy,  16  Me.  80  ;  Carter  v.  Parker,  2S  Me.  .509  ;  Man- 
ning V.  Laboroe,  33  Me.  343 ;  Boyd  v.  Carltoi,  6.)  Me.  200 ;  31  Am. 
Bop.  2S8  ;  Bowie  v.  Berry,  1  Md.  Ch.  452,  4>J ;  Price  r.  Hobbs,  4" 
Md.  353,  3^7;  Gore  v.  Brazier,  3  Mass.  51\  M3 ;  3  Am.  Doc.  V/i; 
Ayer  r>.  Spring,  9  JIass.  8  ;  10  M.ass.  80  ;  Stciirns  v.  Swift,  8  Piok.  5;:2  ; 
Johnston  v.  Van  Dvke,  6  McLean,  422  ;  Guerin  v.  Moore,  25  Minn. 
482,  404  ;  McGehee,  42  Miss.  747 ;  Wooldridge  v.  Wilkins,  4  Miss.  3GD  ; 
Markh.ara  v.  Morrett,  8  Miss.  437  ;  McCIan:ihan  v.  Porter,  10  Mo.  74G; 
O'Flaherty  v.  Sutton,  49  Mo.  583  ;  Coxe  v.  Ilig'jee,  11  N.  J.  L.  395 ;  Van 
Don,  3  N.  J.  L.  513  ;  Johnson  v.  Perloy,  2  N.  II.  5fi,  53  ;  9  Am.  Doc.  35 ; 
Hale  V.  James,  6  Jolin.s.  Ch.  25S,  200;  10  Am.  Dec.  323;  Walker  v. 
Schuyler,  10  Wend.  430  ;  Raynor,  21  Hun,  36  ;  Van  Gclder  v.  Post,  2 
Edw.  Ch.  577  ;  Coates  v.  Cheevor,  1  Cowen,  460  ;  Dolf  v  Basset,  15 
Johns.  21 ;  Campbell  v.  Murphy,  2  Jones  Eq.  357,  3G2  ;  Dunseth  v. 
Bank,  6  Ohio,  76;  Allen  v.  McCoy,  8  Ohio,  413;  Obio  B.  S.  18S0, 
?  5716;  Farrowe  v.  Beam,  10  Ohio,  438;  Oreg.  G.  L.  1874,  p.  585; 
Thompson  v.  Morrow,  5  Serg.  &  R.  2SJ,  2.0;  9  Am.  Dec.  353; 
Shlrtz,  5  Watts,  2.;5 ;  Winder  v.  Little,  1  Yeates,  152;  Leggett  v. 
Steele,  4  Wash.  C.  C.  305  ;  Westcott  v.  Cimpbell.  11  E.  I.  378  ;  Bussell 
V.  Gee,  2  Milk  Const.  251 ;  Brown  r.  Duncan,  4  McCord,  346  ;  Phinnoy 
V.  Johnson,  15  S.  C.  153,  IGO  ;  Alexander  v.  Hamilton,  12  S.  C.  3d ;  Lewis 
V.  James,  8  Humph.  537  ;  Wis.  B.  S.  1878,  5  2166. 

8  See  Leggett  v.  Steele,  4  Wash.  C.  C.  305 ;  Coates  v.  Cheever,  I 
Cowen,  460. 

9  Powell  V.  Johnson,  3  Mason,  347,  369. 

10  Powell  V.  Johnson,  3  Mason,  347,  369. 

11  Stookey,  89  111.  40,  42. 

12  Price  V.  Hobbs,  47  Md.  353,  .388.  S.  P.,  Summers  i\  Babb,  13  IlL 
4S3  ;  McClanahan  v.  Porter,  10  Mo.  743  ;  Ayer  v.  Spring,  9  Mass.  8. 

13  Hale  v.  James,  6  Johns.  Ch.  258, 2G0  ;  10  Am.  Dec.  328. 

14  Hale  V.  James,  6  Johns.  Ch.  253,230  ;  10  Am.  Dee.  328;  infra,  n.  15. 

15  Purrington  v.  Pierce,  38  Me.  447. 

16  Wilson  V.  Oatman,  2  Blackf.  223. 

17  Taylor  v.  Brodrick,  I  Dana,  345 ;  Ayer  v.  Spring,  10  Miss.  80  ; 
Allen  V.  Smith,  1  Cowen,  181,  185;  Humphrey  v.  Phinney,  2  Johns. 
484.  But  see  Yates  v.  Paddock,  10  Wend.  528  ;  Leonard  v.  Steele,  4 
Barb.  20. 

18  Coxe  V.  Higbee,  11  N.  J.  L.  395. 

19  Dolf  V.  Basset,  15  Johns.  21. 

20  Johnson  v.  Van  Dyke,  6  McLean,  422,  430 ;  Coxe  v.  Higbee,  H 
N.  J.  L.  395. 

21  Taylor  v.  Brodick,  1  Dana,  345. 


§  296  DOWER.  456 

22  Dolf  V.  Basset,  15  Johns.  21. 

23  Walsh  V.  Vv'Kson,  121  Mass.  535. 

24  Felch,  52  Iowa,  5G3,  5Go. 

25  Ralston,  3  Greene,  6S3. 

2a    Price  i'.  Hobbs,  47  Md.  359,  3S7  ;  infra,  n.  30. 

27    Doyd  V.  Carlton,  63  Me.  200  ;  31  Am.  Rep.  203. 

23    Gore  v.  Brazier,  3  Mass.  523,  544  ;  3  Am.  Rep.  132  ;  infra,  n.  30. 

23    Lombard  r.  Kinzie,  73  111.  446  ;  Gale  v.  Kinzio,  80  IlL  132. 

30  Price  V.  Hobbs, 47  Md.  359, 3S7.  S.  P.,  Powell  ?-.  Monson, 3  Mason, 
347  ;  Green  v.  Tennant,  2  liar.  (Del.)  3;;6 ;  Summers  r.  Bubb,  13  IlL  483 ; 
Smith  V.  Addlemau,  5  Blackf.  406 ;  Throp  v.  Johnson,  3  Ind.  343  ; 
Carriell  v.  Bronson,  6  Clarl'.e,  471;  Dashiel  v.  Collier,  4  Marsh.  J.  J. 
691 ;  Taylor  v.  Brodrick,  1  IJana,  345 ;  Wall  v.  Hill,  7  Dana,  172  ;  Man- 
ning V.  Laboree,  33  Mo.  343;  Boyd  v.  Carlton,  69  Me.  2.iO  ;  31  Am. 
Rep.  268;  Stearns  v.  Swift,  8  Pick:.  532;  Johnston  v.  Van  Dyk",  6 
McLean,  422;  McGohee,42  Miss.  747;  Woollridge  v.  Wilkins,  4  Miss. 
3C0  ;  McCIanahan  v.  Porter,  10  Mo.  746  ;  Coxe  v.  Higbee,  11  IST.  J.  L. 
395  ;  Campbell  v.  Murphv,  2  Jones  Eq.  a57 ;  Alien  v.  McCov,  8  Ohio, 
418;  Thompson  v.  Jlorrow,  5  Serg.  &  R.  2S »,  2  0;  9  ^m.  Dec.  35j  ; 
Westcott  V.  Campbell,  11  R.  I.  378  ;  Lewis  v.  James,  8  Humph.  5o7. 

31  See  Beavers  v.  Smith,  11  Ala.  20;  Francis  r.  Garrard,  18  Ala- 
794  ;  Thrasher  v.  Pinkard,  23  Ala.  616  ;  Marble  v.  Lewis,  6.i  Barb.  4:i2  ; 
Dorchester  i'.  Coventry,  11  Johrs.  570 ;  Shaw  v.  AVhite,  13  Johns.  179  ; 
Hale  V.  James,  6  Johns.  Ch.  25S,  2(!1  ;  10  Am.  D"c.  32S  ;  Walker  v. 
Schuyler,  10  Wend.  480  ;  Oreg.  G.  S.  1S74,  p.  585;  Phinney  v.  Johnson. 
15  S.  C.  158  ;  Brown  v.  Duncan,  4  McCord,  SA") ;  Russell  v.  Gee,  5 
Mill.  Con.  254 ;  Tod  v.  Baylor,  4  Leigh.  498 ;  Va.  Code  1873,  p,  855 ; 
Wis.  R.  S.  1878,  5  168. 

32  Powell  V.  Monson,  3  Mason,  347,  368;  Hale  v.  James,  6  Johns. 
Ch.  258,  2t;0  ;  10  Am.  Dec.  328 ;  Campbell  v.  Murphy,  2  Jones  Eq.  357, 
362 ;  Westcott  v.  Campbell,  11  R.  I.  378. 

33  Co.  Litt.  32  n.  ;  2  Scribner  Dow.  508. 

34  Campbell  v.  Murphy,  2  Jones  Eq.  ."57,  362. 

35  Thompson  v.  Morrow,  5  Serg.  &  R.  289,  231 ;  9  Am.  Dec.  358 ; 
infra,  n.  36. 

35  Powell  V.  Monson,  3  Mason,  347,  375  ;  Fritz  v.  Tudor,  1  Bush,  28 ; 
McCIanahan  i\  Foster,  10  Mo.  743;  Dunseth  v.  Bank,  6  Ohio,  76; 
Thompson  v.  Morrow,  5  Serg.  &  R.  28),  2)1;  9  Am.  Dec.  358;  West- 
cott V.  Campbell,  11  K.  I.  37S  ;  Braxton  v.  Coleman,  5  Call,  433;  2  Am. 
Doc.  592  ;  2  Scribner  Dow.  6:35. 

37    See  2  Scribner  Dow.  635  ;  infra,  n.  36. 

33    Hale  v.  James,  6  Johns.  Ch.  251 ;  10  Am.  Dec.  328. 

g  296.  Widow's  rijht  to  damages  at  law.  —  At  common 
law,  no  matter  how  much  time  elap.sed  before  the  as- 
signment of  dower,  the  widow  could  not  recover  dam- 
ages for  the  detention  ;i  but  by  the  statute  of  Merton,'^ 
which  has  been  held  in  force  in  the  United  States,^  she 
is  entitled  to  the  whole  value  of  her  dower  from  the 


457  BOWER.  g  237 

time  of  her  husband's  death  to  the  thne  of  the  recovery 
of  the  dower  ;^  and  similar  statutes  are  in  force  in  the 
United  States.^  Under  the  statute  of  ^Slerton  the  hus- 
band must  die  seized,"  and  there  can  be  no  damages 
against  his  alienee;'  but  in  most  States  by  statute  she 
may  recover  damages  against  an  alienee  from  the  time 
of  demand  of  dower.^  Inasmuch  as  suits  at  law  for 
dower  have  not  been  discussed  in  this  volume,^  and 
inasmuch  as  the  widow  has  fuller  relief  in  equity  than 
in  law,^"  a  further  discussion  of  this  subject  is  omitted. 

1  Price  V.  Hobbs,  47  Md.  35!),  SSfl.  See  2  Scribner  Dow.  611 ;  Park 
Dow.  301  ;  10  Co.  110  ;  1  Roper  H.  &  W.  437 ;  Magruder  v.  Smith,  79 
Ky.  512,  513. 

2  20  Hen.  IIL  ch.  1  ;  Alex.  Brit.  Statutes,  20. 

3  Alex.  Brit.  Statutes,  20  ;  Layton  v.  Butler,  4  Har.  (Del.)  507  ; 
Darnall  v.  Hill,  12  Gill  &  J.  333.  Not  in  South  Caroliua:  Hey  ward  v. 
Cuthbert,  1  McCord,  3»6. 

4  Co.  Litt.  32  6,  n.  4  ;  2  Scribner  Dow.  704-707. 

5  See  Statutes  (collected  2  Scribner  Dow.  700,  701). 

6  The  statute  so  states :  See  Thym,  Stvle,  61 ;  Beavers  v.  Smith, 
11  Ala.  20  ;  McElroy  v.  Wathen,  3  Mon.  i^.  105  ;  Price  v.  Hobbs,  47  Md. 
359,  389. 

7  Price  v.  Hobbs,  47  Md.  350,  330.  Soe  1  Roper  H.  <fe  W.  440 ;  2 
Scribner  Dow.  710 ;  Sellnaan  v.  Bowen,  8  Gill  &.  J.  50 ;  29  Am.  Dec.  524  ; 
Embree  v.  Ellis,  2  Johns.  119. 

8  See  111.  R.  S.  1880,  p.  428  ;  Mo.  R.  S.  1879,  ?  2206  ;  N.  H.  G.  L.  1873, 
p.  560  ;  R.  I.  R.  S.  1882,  p.  637. 

9  A}ite,  I  286.    Discussed  2  Scribner  Dow.  ch.  25. 
10    Price  V.  Hobbs,  47  Md.  359,  389.    See  post,  ?  297. 

?  297.  Widow's  right  to  an  account  of  tho  mosne  proHts 
in  equity.  —  Equity  has  full  jurisdiction  over  proceed- 
ings for  the  assignment  of  dower ;  ^  and  may  award 
mesne  profits  even  when  dower  has  been  assigned  at 
law.2  A  judgment  at  law  is  conclusive  as  to  the  mar- 
riage, and  as  to  the  seisin  and  death  of  the  husband  ;  ^ 
but  if  it  also  decides  on  the  merits  tliat  the  widow  is  not 
entitled  to  mesne  profits,  tliis  question  is  also  res  adju- 
dicata.*^  Whether  equity  will  entertain  a  suit  for  mesne 
profits  when  dower  lias  not  been  assigned  and  assign- 
ment is  not  prayed,  is  doubtful.^    The  widow  is  entitled 

H.  &  W.  — 39. 


g  297  DOWER.  458 

to  mesne  profits  in  equity  indcpendenlly  of  the  statute 
of  Merton,^  and  she  may  recover  from  the  husband's 
alienee,'  as  well  as  from  the  heir  or  devisee  ;*  for  a  ten- 
ant receiving  the  rents  and  j^rofits  after  the  husband's 
death  is  regarded  as  a  trustee  for  the  widow  to  the  ex- 
tent of  her  interest.^  As  against  tlie  heir  or  devisee  no 
demand  is  necessary,'"  and  the  heir's  alienee  stands  in 
the  same  position  a^  the  heir  himself,"  except  that  in 
one  case  he  \va.H  held  liable  for  profits  only  from  the 
time  of  the  purchase.'^  As  against  the  husband's 
alienee,  demand  is  necessary  and  profits  can  be  recov- 
ered only  from  the  date  thereof.'*  If  the  tenant  die 
pending  the  suit,  this  does  not  affect  the  widow's  right 
to  mesne  profits;'*  and  if  slie  die  pending  suit,  her 
personal  representatives  can  recover  sucli  profits;'* 
but  if  the  widow  die  witliout  instituting  suit,  it  is  said 
in  Maryland  that  her  right  is  gone,'*  though  the  con- 
trary is  elsewhere  held.''  And  in  one  case  it  is  held 
that  if  she  die  ponding  the  suit,  her  representatives  can 
recover  only  from  the  heir,  not  from  the  husband's 
alienee.'*  Tlie  mesne  profits  are  tlie  actual  profits  from 
the  time  of  demand  or  the  husband's  death,  as  the  case 
may  be," — a  part  of  the  rent  if  the  property  has  been 
leased,'^'*  a  share  of  the  crop,-'  or,  if  dower  is  assigned 
in  money,  interest  on  the  amount.^-  A  release  of  dower 
includes  a  release  of  rents  .and  profits  ;  -^  and  the  widow 
will  not  bo  allowed  to  receive  mesne  profits  if  she  has 
occupied  the  land  meanwhile,^'  or  has  been  comi^en- 
sated  for  the  delay  in  the  assignment  of  dower.^^ 

1  Kiddall  v.  Trimble,  1  Md.  Ch.  143,  146  ;  ante,  ?  283. 

2  PnVe  V.  Hohhs,  47  Md.  .359,  .389  ;  Bullock  v.  Griffin,  .  Strob.  Kq. 
60.    But  see  Whitehead  v.  Clinch,  1  Murph.  128. 

3  .SoUmati  v.  Boweii,  8  Gill  &  J.  50  ;  20  Am.  Dec.  524 ;  Turner  r. 
Morris,  7  Miss.  783. 

4  Kiddall  v.  Trimble,  1  Md.  Ch.  143,  U\    But  see  Darnall  v.  Hill, 
12  Gill  &  J.  388. 

.5    I^ro,  Harper  v.  Archer,  28  Miss,  2:2,     Cmtra,  Kiddall  v.  Trimble, 
1  Md.  Ch.  143,  149,  150. 


459  DOWEK.  2  298 

f.  Kpftli  71.  Trapier,  I  Bail.  Eq.  6^,  74.  But  see  Kendall  v.  Honey,  5 
Mon.  2S2  ;  Tod  v.  Baylor,  4  Leigh,  4'J8. 

7  Price  „.  Hobbs,  47  Md.  a53,  389.  But  see  McElroy  v.  Wathen,  3 
Mon.  B.  135. 

8  Harper  v,  Archor,  2S  Miss.  212. 

9  Sellman  v.  Bowcn,  8  Gill  &  J.  50  ;  29  Am.  Dec.  524. 

10  Slatter  v.  Mpek,n5  Ala.  52S  ;  Chase,  1  Bland,  206;  17  Am.  Dec. 
277;  Darnall  v.  Hill,  12  Gill  &  J.  SSS ;  Johnson  v.  Thomas,  2  Paige, 
377;  Russell  v.  Austin,  1  Paige,  11)2;  Ilazen  v.  Thurber,  4  Johns. 
Oh.  601 ;  Swaine  v.  Periiie,  5  Johns.  Ch.  4^2 ;  9  Am.  Dec.  318.  Contra, 
Tod  V.  Baylor,  4  Leigh,  498. 

11  Russell  V.  Austin,  1  Paige,  i:r2  ;  Campbell  v.  Murphy,  2  Jones 
Eq.  357. 

12  Russell  V.  Austin,  1  Paige,  192. 

13  Price  v.  Hobbs.  47  Ml.  3.i1,  3S1 ;  Steiger  v.  Hillen,  5  Gill  &  J.  I2t  ; 
Sellman  v.  Bowen.SGill  cfe  J.  50  ;  2)Am.  Dec.  524  ;  Chiswell  d.  Morris, 
15  N.  J.  Eq.  101 ;  Tod  v.  Baylor,  4  Leigh,  498. 

14  Curtis,  2  Bro.  C.  C.  fi:0;  Steiger  r.  Hillen,  5  Gill  ife  J.  121  ;  Park 
Dow.  220  ;  2  Scribnor  Dow.  742.  But  see  Whitehead  x\  Clinch,  1  Murph. 
128. 

15  Kiddall  ?-.  Trimbl",  1  Md.  Ch.  U\  147 ;  Lindsav  v.  Gibbon,  3  Bro. 
C.  C.  495 ;  Hamilton  r.  Mohun,  1  P.  Wms.  118, 122 ;  Magruder  i>.  Smith, 
79  Kv.  512,  515,  517.  Contra,  Turney  v.  Smith,  14  111.  242;  Miller  v. 
Woodman,  14  Ohio,  518. 

16  Kiddall  v.  Trimble,  1  Md.  Ch.  143,  147. 

17  Harper  v.  Archer,  28  Miss.  212  ;  McLaughlin,  20  X.  J.  Eq.  190: 
Sandbacl<;  r.  Quigley,  8  Watts,  4(!0 ;  Paul,  36  Pa.  St.  270;  Tibbita  v. 
Langley,  12  S.  C.  465. 

18  Johnson  v.  Thomas,  2  Paige,  377. 

19  Keith  v.  Trapier.  1  Bail.  Eq.  e."?,  71. 

20  Chase,  1  Bland,  206  ;  17  Am.  Dec.  277. 

21  Darnall  r  Hill,  12  Gill  &  J.  388,3 16. 

22  Keith  v.  Trapier.  1  Bail.  Eq.  61,  74. 

23  Morrison.  11  III.  App.  60r>. 

24  Springle  v.  Shiplds,  17  All.  205  ;  Smith  v.  Addleman,  5  Blackf. 
406.  408;  Rackliff  1'.  Look,  63  Me.  516;  McLaughlin,  22  N.  J.  Eq.  60o  ; 
Talbot,  13  R.  I.  336. 

25  Woodruff  v.  Brown,  17  N.  J.  L.  246. 

I  298.  Effect  of  assi»nmon.t.  —  When  dower  i.s  assigned 
without  suit,  fairly  and  of  common  right,  it  satisfies  and 
bars  dower ; '  but  if  the  assignment  be  against  common 
right,  it  does  not  avail  as  a  defense  for  any  one  not 
a  party  or  privy  to  the  agreement.^  When  assigned 
'bj  suit  the  lands  not  assigned  are  freed  ;3  but,  as  if 
the  title  to  the  assigned  lands  fails,  the  widow  ha.s  a 
right  to  a  new  assignment.*    It  is  necessary  that  one 


g  299  DOWER.  460 

who  takes  title  in  lands  out  of  which  dower  lias  been 
assigned  should  be  sure  that  the  widow's  title  to  the 
lands  assigned  is  good.^ 

1  2  Scribner  Dow.  7-17 ;  aiite,  ?  285. 

2  Co.  Litt.  35  a  ;  2  Scribner  Dow.  747  ;  ante,  ?  276. 

3  2  Scribnor  Dow.  ch.  27. 

4  Pjst,  i  TOO. 

5  P-xrk  Dow.  283  ;  2  Ssribner  Dow.  750. 

^  233.  Eaj3t  of  0233331 V3  assijnmsnt. — ^If  an  assign- 
ment has  been  mada  without  suit  by  an  adult  tenant, 
lie  can  have  no  relief.'  If  he  were  an  infant,  a  court  of 
law  will  grant  him  a  writ  of  admeasurement  of  dower, ^ 
now  almost  obsolete,^  unless  he  has  ratified  his  assign- 
ment after  coming  of  age;*  but  he  cannot  treat  his 
assignment  as  void  and  enter  against  the  widow.^  If 
the  assignment  has  been  made  in  legal  proceedings  by 
the  officer  of  the  coui't,  and  is  defective  in  that  it  as- 
signs lands  not  covered  by  the  judgment,  the  tenant 
may  recover  possession  by  ejectment  ;8  if  the  assign- 
ment has  been  too  great,  the  tenant  may  by  scire  facias 
have  an  assignment  de  novo,''  or  perhajis  equity  will  set 
the  assignment  aside. ^  But  though  the  proper  court  in 
AS'hich  to  object  to  the  assignment  of  dower  is  the  court 
in  which  the  assignment  was  made,'  and  the  proj^er 
time  is  when  the  officer  has  made  his  return,'"  yet 
equity  will  sometimes  set  aside  an  assignment  made  at 
law,''  and  a  petition  for  a  new  assignment  may  in  the 
proper  case  be  filed  long  after  the  report  of  the  officer 
and  the  ratification  thereof,''^  and  if  it  appear  that  there 
has  been  fraud  or  mistake  a  new  assignment  will  be 
ordered.'^  This  was  done  in  a  case  where  long  after 
assignment  the  heirs  were  ousted  by  title  paramount 
of  the  lands  set  off  to  them  while  the  widow  had  re- 
ceived propertj^  to  wliich  the  title  was  good.'*  But  if 
the  widow  is  deprived  of  lands  once  assigned  to  her  in 


461  DOWER.  ?  300 

dower,   she    must   bo  allowed  for  the  improvements 
meanwhile  put  thereupon  by  her.'^ 

1  Stoughton  V.  T.pig^h,  1  Taunt.  404,  412  ;  Gilb.  Dow.  330;  2  .Scribiipr 
Dow.  751 :  1  Roper  H.  &  W.  407. 

2  Sep  McCormick  v.  Taylor,  2  Cart.  (lud.)  336  ;  Young  v.  Tarbell, 
37  Me.  509. 

3  Park  Dow.  270. 

4  1  Roper  H.  &  \V.  407. 

5  McCormick  v.  Taylor,  2  Cart,  find.)  .3.36. 

6  2  Scribner  Dow.  753. 

7  Park  Dow.  271 ;  2  .Scribner  Dow.  7.54  ;  1  Roper  H.  &  W.  406,  400. 

8  .Sneyd,  1  Atk.  442 ;  Park  Dow.  272  ;  1  Roper  H.  fe  W.  40a 

9  2  Scribner  Dow.  7.5.5. 
10    2  Scribner  Dow.  755. 

•     11    See  citations  supra,  n.  7. 

12    Singleton,  5  Dana,  87. 

1.3  See  Chapman  )'.  Shroedor,  10  Ga.  321,  328 ;  Donahue  v.  Chicago, 
57  III.  233;  Loyd  v.  Malone,  23  III.  43;  Cove  v.  Gather,  23  111.  G.34  ; 
Throp  V.  Johnson.  3  Ind.  343  ;  Singleton,  5  Dana,  87 ;  Rawson  v.  Clark, 
:W  Me.  -223 ;  Wilhelm,  4  Md.  Ch.  330  ;  Stiner  v.  Cawthorne,  4  Dev.  &  B. 
.561 ;  Eagles,  2  Hayw.  181 ;  Shirtz,  5  Watts,  2.55  ;  Benner  v.  Evans,  3 
Pa.  456,  457;  Hawkins  v.  Ilall,  2  Bav,  440;  Williams  i'.  Lanneau,  4 
2  Strob.  27;  Douglass  v.  McDill,  1  Spear,  1.3!);  Gibson  v.  Marshall,  ,5 
Rich.  Eq.  254  ;  Beaty  v.  Hearst,  1  McMull.  31 ;  Payne,  Dud.  Eq.  124. 

14  Singleton,  5  Dana,  87. 

15  Pierson  v.  Hitchner,  25  N.  J.  Eq.  129 ;  2  Scribner  Dow.  758. 

§  300.  Effect  of  eviction  from  dower. — When,  after 
dower  has  been  assigned,  the  widow  is  evicted  and 
loses  her  dower,  if  the  assignment  were  of  common 
right  and  she  had  received  only  wliat  her  legal  rights 
entitled  Iter  to,^  she  may  proceed  for  a  new  assignment 
out  of  the  remainder  of  the  lands  subject  to  dower,^ 
just  as  if  no  assignment  had  been  made.^  But  it  seems 
that  this  rule  does  not  apply  as  against  the  hiisband's 
alienee  at  common  law.*  If  the  assignment  were 
again.st  common  right  and  she  had  agreed  to  take  lands 
in  assignment  instead  of  the  lands  she  Avas  legally 
entitled  to,'  she  liad  no  remedy  if  evicted.^  But  mere 
acquiescence  in  a  defective  assignment  by  the  sheritr 
is  not  an  assignment  against  common  right  in  this  con- 


§  300  DOWER.  462 

nectionJ    This  matter  has  been  in   maiiA'  States  the 
subject  of  legislation. 8 

1  Ante,  I  285. 

2  French  v.  Peters,  33  Me.  306  ;  French  r-.  Pratt,  27  Me.  831 ;  Mantz 
V.  Buchanan,  1  Md.  Ch.  202  ;  Scott  v.  Hancock,  13  Mass.  162,  168  ; 
Jones  V.  Brewer,  1  Pick.  314,  .SI";  Holloman,  .5  Sniedes  &  M.  559; 
St.  Clair  V.  Williams,  7  Ohio,  110  ;  30  Am.  Dec.  194  ;  Park  Dow.  275  ;  2 
Scribner  Dow.  761. 

3  French  v.  Pratt,  27  Me.  381,  3:)6,  397. 

4  BecUngfleld,  9  Co.  17  6.  ;  Park  Dow.  275 

5  Ante,  i  285. 

6  French  v.  Pratt,  27  Me.  381,  396,  397  ;  Jones  v.  Brewer,  1  Pick. 
314,  317  ;  2  Scribner  Dow.  764  ;  Park  Dow.  242. 

7  Perk.  ?  330 ;  2  Scribner  Dow.  764 ;  Park  Dow.  292. 

8  See  Mass.  P.  S.  1882,  p.  442 ;  Vt.  B..  S,  1880,  i  2225  ;  Wis.  R.  S.  1878. 
i  2173. 


463  wife's  estate.  §  301 

CHAPTER  XV. 

wife's  estate  in  husbaxd's  personalty. 

5  301.    Generally. 

2  301.  Wife's  estate  in  husband's  personalty,  generally. 
—  In  some  States  by  statute  a  wife  has  dower  in  lease- 
hold property  and  other  personalty,  but  at  common 
law  the  wife  has  during  coverture  no  right  in  her  hus- 
band's personalty,^  except  her  right  to  have  inainten- 
ance^  or  alimony*  out  of  it,  in  a  proper  case,  and  her 
right  to  dispose  of  it  if  abandoned.^  He  may  give  it 
away  and  do  witli  it  as  he  pleases  if  his  act  takes  effect 
during  coverture.^  But  in  most  States  he  cannot  leave 
it  all  away  from  her  by  will  —  she  has  her  thirds.' 

1  Ark.  Dig.  1874,  ?  2230  ;  Mo.  K.  S.  1879,  ?  2187  ;  ante,  ?  254. 

2  Padfleld,  78  111.  16,  18 ;  Hays  v.  Henry,  1  Md.  Ch.  3.37,  340. 

3  Discussed  Stewart  M.  &  D.  §  179. 

4  Discussed  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ??  383-397. 

5  Eawson  v.  Spangler,  18  Cent.  Law  J.  29,  30  ;  Iowa,  1883 ;  ante, 


!  90. 


Padaeld,  78  111.  16, 19  ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ^  462. 
Discussed  Stewart  M.  &  D.  §  462. 


§§    302-303      ESTATES   OF   HUSBAXD   AND   WIFK.  464 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

ESTATES  OF   HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  IN  PROPERTY  OF  BOTH 
OF   THEM. 

i  302.  Property  owned  by  both  before  marriage. 

I  303.  Property  vesting  in  them  after  marriage. 

I  304.  Tenancy  by  the  entirety  at  common  law  —  Creation  of. 

i  ;J05.  Tenancy  by  the  entirety  at  common  law  —  Property  subject  to. 

'i  306.  Tenancy  by  the  entirety  at  common  law  — Incidents  of. 

J  307.  Effect  of  statutes  referring  to  joint  estates. 

i  303.  Effect  of  married  women's  separate  property  acts. 

J  303.  Effect  of  divorce. 

?  310.  Joint  and  common  estates  of  husband  and  wife. 

i  3U.  Personal  property  belonging  to  both, 

^  302.  Estates  of  husband  and  wife  in  property  owned  by 
them  both  before  marraige.  —  When  two  tenants  in  com- 
mon or  two  joint  tenants  many,  the  character  of  the 
estate  held  bj^  them  is  not  changed,'  thongh  each  has 
in  the  interest  of  the  other  the  same  estate  as  he  or  she 
would  if  the  otlier  Avere  a  tenant  in  common  or  a  joint 
tenant  with  some  third  party  instead  of  with  him  or 
her.2 

1  1  Wash.  Real.  Prop.  •124  ;  Moociv,  Amb.  ^49  ;  Bevfne  v.  Cline,  2T 
ind.  37;  Chandler  v.  Chenov,  37  Ind.  3!)I  ;  Den  v.  Hardenberg^h,  10 
N.  J.  L.  4-2,  -ir, :  18  Am.  Dec.  371 ;  McDermolt  v.  French,  15  N.  J.  Eq.  78, 
80 ;  Ames  v.  Norman,  4  Sneed,  69G. 

2  Beeante,P/l-iS,ir>7,2a4. 

I  303.  Estates  of  husband  and  wife  in  property  vesting- 
in  them  both  during  coverture.  — Husband  and  wife  are 
at  common  law  one  person,'  so  that  when  realt}'^  or 
personalty^  vests  in  them  both  equally  with  a  third 
party,  they  together  take  but  one  share,  a  moietj^ 
and  the  third  party  takes  the  other  moiety.*  That 
moiety,  or  in  case  the  Avhole  property  A'ests  in  them 
alone,  the  whole,  they  take  as  one  person  ;5  "they  take 
but  one  estate  as  a  corporation  would  take."^    In  the 


465  ESTATES    OF    HUSBAND    AND   WIFE.  g    303 

case  of  realty  they  are  seized,  not  per  mi/  et  per  tout,  as 
joint  tenants  are  J  but  simply  pe?"  tout  ;^  both  are  seized, 
of  the  whole,  and  eacli  being  thus  seized  of  the  en- 
tirety, they  are  called  tenants  by  the  entirety,  and  the 
estate  is  an  estate  by  entireties.^  In  the  case  of  per- 
sonalty there  is  strictly  no  tenancy  by  the  entirety,'" 
because  personal  property  is  not  subject  to  estates  at 
common  law,"  and  the  husband  has  the  absolute  right 
to  the  wife's  chattels,'-  which  right  liis  part  ownership 
of  the  chattels  would  not  interfere  with.'^  But  entireties 
are  said  to  exist  in  chattels  real,  etc."  In  Ohio  the 
common-law  estate  by  entii'eties  has  never  been  recog- 
nized, but  husband  and  wife  are  tenants  in  common  or 
joint  tenants,  according  to  the  wording  of  the  instru- 
ment through  which  they  hold;'^  so  it  is  in  Connec- 
ticut.''' In  Kentucky  estates  by  entireties  have  been 
expressly  abolished  by  statute,'^  and  though  the  gen- 
eral rule  is  that  such  estates  continue  to  exist  unless 
expressly  abolished,'^  in  some  States  they  have  been 
held  to  be  abolished  by  statutes  referring  to  joint  es- 
tates,'^ and  by  married  women's  separate  property 
acts.^  In  some  States  property  vesting  in  husband 
and  wife  after  marriage  is  "community  property," ^i 
and  they  may  also  acquire  a  homestead  in  most 
States.22 

1  H.irciing  v.  Springer,  14  Me.  -«T7,  408 ;  ante,  \  39. 

2  Sha-w  f.  Hearsay,  5  Mass.  521,  523  ;  infra,  n.  4. 

3  Bricker  v.  Whalley,  1  Vern.  233  ;  ante,  §  302  ;  Infra,  n.  4. 

4  Litt.  ?  2ni  ;  Bricker  v.  Whnllev,  1  Vern.  233  ;  Back  v.  Andrews,  2 
Vern.  120  ;  Wvkle,  2  DeGex,  M.  &  G.  724  ;  Atclieson,  11  Beav.  485.  491  ; 
IS  Law  J.  N.  S.  Ch.  230;  Gordon  r.  Whieldon,  IS  Law  R.  N.  S.  Ch.  5  : 

11  Beav.  170;  Doe  ?'.  Wilson,  4  Barn.  A  AUl.  303  ;  Shaw  r.  Hearsav.  5 
Mass.  .521, 522  ;  Den  v.  Tlardenhereh,  10  X.  J.  L.  42, 45  :  IS  Am.  Dec.  371  : 
Barher  v.  Harris,  15  Wend.  fi15  ;  .Tolmson  r.  Hart,  6  Watts  <fe  S.  31!) ; 
40  Am.  Dee.  585.    Contra,  Warrington,  2  Hare,  .54  ;  Paine  v.  Wagner, 

12  Sim.  184. 

5  Den  v.  Hardenbergh,  10  N.  J.  L.  42,  45 ;  18  Am.  Dec.  371 ;  infra, 
n.  9. 

6  Paul  V.  Campbell,  7  Yerg.  310;  27  Am.  Dec.  508, 


g   303  ESTATES   OF   HUSBAND   AND   WIFE.  466 

7  Topping  V.  Sadler,  5  Jones,  357  ;  post,  ?  307. 

8  2  Blackst.  Com.  180-182. 

9  See  Bafk  »'.  Andrews,  2  Vern.  120  ;  Prec.  Ch.  1  ;  Green  v.  King, 
2  Blackst.  liU  ;  Doe  v.  Parrott,  5  Term,  652  ;  Doe  r.  Wilson,  4  Barn.  & 
Aid.  303  ;  Shaver,  31  U.  C.  Q.  B.  605  ;  Ins.  Co.  v.  Nelson,  103  U.  S.  544  ; 
Myers  v.  Reed,  17  Fed.  Rep.  401  ;  Robinson  v.  Eagle,  29  Ark.  202  ; 
Boggs,  54  Ga.  95,  97  ;  Maurler  v.  Saunders,  5  Gilni.  124  ;  Lux  v.  Hoff.  47 
111.  425,  428;  Almond  v.  Bonnell,  76  111.  536;  Cooper,  76  111.  57,  64  ; 
Riggin  V.  Love,  72  111.  5.53  ;  Hulelt  v.  Inlow,  57  Ind.  412;  26  Am.  Rep. 
64  ;  Davis  v.  Clark.  26  Ind.  424  ;  Anderson  v.  Tannerhill,  42  Ind.  141  : 
Abshire  v.  State, 53  Ind.  64,66;  Mc(  onnell  r.  5rartin,52  Ind.  434;  Barnes 
V.  Lloyd,  37  Ind.  523;  Carver  •!•.  Smith,  90  Ind.  215  ;  Dodge  v.  Kinzey, 
(Ind.  1SS4),  18  Cent.  L.  J.  173 ;  Hoffman  v.  Stigers.28  Iowa,  :«)2, 307  ;  Elli- 
ott V.Nichols,  4  Bush,  502,  503;  Banton  v.  Campbell,  9  Mon.  B.  587; 
Cochrane  r.  Kerne  ,'.  9  Bush,  199  ;  Moore,  12  Mon.  B.  651  ;  Harding  v. 
Springer,  14  Me.  407,408;  Greenlaw,  13  Me.  186;  Fladung  v.  Rose,  58 
Md.  13,24;  Marburg  v.  Cole,  49  Md.  402,  413;  33  Am.  Rep.  266;  Craft 
V.  Wilco.x,  4  Gill,  504  ;  Brinton  v.  Hook,  3  Md.  Ch.  477 ;  Lowell,  22  Pick. 
215,  221  ;  Shaw  r.  Hearsav,  5  Mass.  521,  523  ;  Kennedv,  119  Mass.  211 ; 
Abbott,  97  Mass.  i::6  ;  Water  v.  Coffin,  13  Allen,  217;  Fox  r.  Fletcher, 
8  Mass.  274  ;  Varnum  v.  Abbott.  12  Mass.  474,  479;  Fisher  i'.  Rovin,  25 
Mich.  .W7  ;  Jacobs  v.  Miller,  50  Mich.  119 ;  Wart  v.  Bovee,  35  Mich.  425, 
428  ;  Hemingway  v.  Scales,  42  Miss.  1  ;  2  Am.  Rep.  5S6  ;  Duff  v.  Bean- 
champ,  50  Miss.  .531 ;  Allen  1'.  Tate, 58  Miss.  5S5  ;  Gilson  v.  Zimmerman, 
12  Miss.  385 ;  Hali  i'.  Stephens,  ft5  Mo.  670 ;  27  Am.  Rep.  Pm  ;  Garner  v. 
Jones,  52  Mo.  68  ;  Thornton  v.  Exchange.  71  Mo.  221 ;  Wentworth  v. 
Remlck,  47  N.  H.  226 :  Carter  v.  Boals,  44  N.  II.  407  ;  Brown  r.  (Sale,  5 
N.  H.  416 ;  Clark,  56  N.  H.  105, 110  ;  Lee  r.  Zabriskee,  28  N.  J.  Eq.  422, 
428,  notes  ;  35  N.  J.  Eq.  135,  i;!6,  notes  ;  Bolles  v.  Trust,  27  N.  J.  Eq.  .308  ; 
Don  V.  Hardenborgh,  10  N.  J.  T,.  42,  45  ;  18  Am.  Dee.  371  ;  Den  v.  Gnrd- 
nor,  20  N.  J.  L.  .5-56,  .562  ;  Kipp, ;«  N.  J.  Eq.  213;  Thomas  v.  De  Bauni, 
14  N.  J.  Eq.  37,  40;  McDermott  v.  French,  15  N.  J.  Eq.  78,  SO  ;  Bertles 
r.  Noonan,  92  N.  Y.  152 ;  44  Am.  Rep.  361  ;  Meeker  v.  Wright,  70  N.  Y. 
202  ;  Wright  7-.  S.adler,  20  N.  Y.  320, 323  ;  Torre v,  14  N.  Y.  4:iO ;  Farmers' 
V.  Mechanics',  4:»  Barb.  162  ;  Miller,  9  Abb.  Pr.  N.  S.  444  ;  Baker  r. 
Lamb,  18  N.  V.  Snpr.  519  ;  Jones  v.  Potter,  89  N.  C.  220,  222  ;  McCurd  v 
V.  Canning,  ri  Pa.  St.  39,  40  ;  French  ?'.  Neehan,  .56  Pa.  St.  286  ;  Bates 
V.  Seelv,  46  Pa.  Si.  248;  Clark  v.  Thompson,  12  Pa.  St.  274  ;  Stuckev  v. 
Koefe,  26  Pa.  St.  .307  ;  Gillan  v.  Dixon,  6.5  Pa.  St.  .395  ;  Tnpper  r.  Fuller, 
7  Rich.  Eq.  170  ;  Bomar  i'.  Mullins,  4  Rich.  Eq.  80  ;  Ames  v.  Norman, 
4  Sneed,  692  ;  Berrigan  v.  Fleming,  2  Lea,  271  ;  "Taul  r.  Campl)ell,  7 
Yerg.  319;  27  Am.  Dec.  508;  Thornton,  3  Rand.  179;  Brownson  v. 
Hull,  16  Vt.  309  ;  Ketchum  v.  Walsworth.  5  Wis.  95  ;  Allie  v.  Schmetz, 
17  Wis.  16) :  B'^nn'-tt  v.  Child,  19  Wis.  364.  Cases  collected:  18  Cent. 
L.  J.  183, 236,  326  ;  28  N.  J.  Eq.  422,  notes  ;  35  N.  J.  Eq.  135,  notes. 

10  Wart  V.  Bovee,  35  Mich.  425,  428  ;  post,  ?  311. 

11  Discussed  ante,  ?  136. 

12  Discussed  ante,  §?  163-183  ;  post,  ?  311. 

13  Atcheson,  11  Beav.  485,  491 ;  Polk  v.  Allen,  19  Mo.  467,  468  ;  jjo«<, 
?311. 

14  2  Preston  on  Abstracts,  39 ;  post,  §  305. 

15  Sergeant  i\  Steinberger,  2  Ohio,  305  ;  15  .\m.  Dec.  553  ;  Wilson  f. 
Fleming,  13  Ohio,  68 ;  Penn  v.  Cox,  16  Ohio,  30. 

16  Whittlesey,  U  Conn.  340  ;  Taylor  i:  Knapp,  25  Conn.  513. 

17  Elliott  V.  Xlcholls,  4  Bush,  .502,  503. 

18  Marburg  v.  Cole,  49  Md.  402,  413  ;  33  Am.  Rep.  266  :  post,  ?  COS. 


467  ESTATES   OF   HUSBAND   AXD   WIFE.  §    304 

19  Hoffman  v.  Stigers,  28  Iowa,  S02,  307  ;  post,  I  307. 

20  Clark,  58  N.  H.  105,  110  ;  posf,     303. 

21  Discussed  i50.s<,  ?§  312,  313. 

23  Barber  ?>.  Bahel,  36  Cal.  16;  Chase  v.  Abbott,  20  Iowa,  151.  Dis- 
cussed i)o.s«,  II  320-330. 

I  304.  Tenancy  by  entireties,  creation  of.  —  Estates  by 
entireties  may  be  created  by  will,^  by  instrument  of 
gift  or  purchase,^  and  even  by  inheritance  ;3  nor  need 
the  man  and  woman  be  husband  and  wife  at  the  time 
the  instrument  is  executed  or  the  descent  is  cast,  if 
only  they  be  married  at  tlie  time  the  estate  vests.* 
There  is  no  question  but  that  words  vesting  the  prop- 
erty in  husband  and  wife  without  qualification  and 
without  even  referring  to  them  as  husband  and  wife,^ 
create  an  estate  by  entireties;^  but  though  it  is  con- 
stantly said  the  same  words  which  would  vest  an 
estate  in  common  or  a  joint  estate  in  other  persons  vest 
an  entirety  in  the  husband  and  wife,'  and  that  a  deed 
to  them  as  joint  tenants,^  or  as  tenants  in  common,^  is 
simply  a  solecism,  their  relation  preventing  any  estate 
but  one  by  entirety  arising  in  them,!"  it  is  acknowl- 
edged that  they  may  hold  property  vesting  in  them 
before  marriage  as  tenants  in  common,  etc.;"  and  the 
prevailing  view  is  that,  especially  under  modern  stat- 
utes, they  may,  by  express  words,  be  made  joint  ten- 
ants or  tenants  in  common. i-  And  there  are  cases 
where  the  husband  is  joined  with  the  wife  simply  as 
trustee,"  or  where  one  of  the  parties  has  some  special 
estate  inconsistent  with  a  tenancy  by  entireties  i*  in 
which  this  estate  does  not  exist.  If  two  persons  are 
described  as  husband  and  wife,  an  estate  by  entireties 
is  created  whether  they  are  validly  married  or  not.i» 

1  1  Preston  Estates,  131. 

2  2  Blackst.  Com.  1S2. 

3  Gillan  v.  Dixon,  6o  Pa.  St.  39.5. 


§§    305-306      ESTATES   OP   HUSBAND   AXD   WIFE.  '1G8 

4  See  Jickling,  Legal  &  Eq.  Estates,  252  ;  Nicholls,  Vin.  Ahr, 
Baron  et  Feme  ;  Co.  Litt.  187  ;  Plowd.  Comm.  4S3 ;  Freeman  on  Co- 
tenancy, J  63. 

5  Chandler  v.  Cheney,  37  Ind.  391 ;  1  Wash.  Real  Prop.  577. 

6  Marburg  v.  Cole,  49  Md.  402,  412;  33  Am.  Itep.  2G6  ;  Hamm  i'. 
Meisenhelter,  9  Watts,  350  ;  ante,  'i  303,  n.  i). 

7  Den  r.  Hardenbergh,  10  X.  J.  L.  42,  45  ;  IS  Am.  Dec.  371.  See 
Green  v.  Kmg,  2  Black,  W.  1213;  Doe  v.  Purrott,  5  Term  Rep.  6-52; 
Farmers  v.  Gregory,  49  Barb.  155  ;  Goelet  v.  Gori,  31  Barb.  314 ;  .Stueky 
V.  Keefe,  26  Pa.  St.'3J7  ;  Martin  v.  Jackson,  26  Pa.  St.  504  ;  ante,  {  303, 
n.  9. 

8  Pollock  V.  Kelley,  fi  I.  R.  C.  L.  ?67. 

9  Brun  i-.  Glover,  1  IToX  Ch.  71. 

10    See  Clark,  56  N.  H.  lOr,,  110  ;  post,  i  30S. 

It  Den  i\  Hardenbergh,  10  X.  J.  I..  42,  4> ;  13  Am.  Dec.  371  ante, 
I  302 ;  post,  i  310. 

12  Fladung  v.  Rose,  53  Md.  13,  22-25  •  j^ost,  i  310. 

13  See  Moore,  12  Mon.  B..  634  ;  Babbitt  v.  Scroggin,  1  Duval,  27:5 ; 
ante,  ?  132. 

14  See  Edwards  v.  Beall,  75  Ind.  401. 

15  Jacobs  V.  Miller,  50  Mich.  119,  125. 

^  305.  Tenancy  by  entirety  at  common  law  —  Property 
Bubjoct  to.  —  A  tenanc}'  b}^  entireties  may  exist  in  an 
estate  "  in  fee,  in  tail,  for  life,^  or  for  years,  or  other 
chattels  real."'^  It  may  exist  in  an  estate  in  posses- 
sion, remainder,  or  reversion;^  in  legal  or  equitable 
estates  ;  *  in  a  customary  estate  ; »  in  a  copyhold  estate  ;  ^ 
and  in  incorporeal  as  well  as  corporeal  property,^ 
Properly  speaking,  personaltj'  cannot  be  held  by  the 
entirety  .8 

1  Jones  V.  Potter,  89  X.  C.  220,  222. 

2  2  Preston  on  Abstracts,  31 ;  Wiscot,  2  Co.  6Q;  5  Bac.  Abr.  244  ; 
Dovvniiig  v.  .Seymour,  Cro.  Eliz.  yi2. 

3  Purefoy  v.  Rogers,  2  Saund.  3S2. 

4  See  Korman  v.  Cunningham,  5  Gratt.  70. 

5  Glaister  v.  Hewer,  8  Ves.  I'Jo. 

6  Doe  V.  Parrott,  5  Term.  Rep.  052. 

7  See  Kingdom  r.  Bridges,  2  Vern.  56. 

8  Abshire  v.  State,  53  Ind.  64,  6S  ;  post,  i  311. 

§  306.  Estates  by  entireties — Incidents  of.  —  The  essen- 
tial characteristics  of  estates  by  entireties  are :  each 
tenant  is  seized  of  the  whole  ;  ^  the  estate  is  inseverable 


469  ESTATES   OF   HUSBAND   AXD   WIFE.  §    306 

—  cannot  be  partitioned  ;  -  neither  husband  nor  wife  can 
alone  affect  the  inheritanc3  —  the  survivor's  right  to  the 
whole  ;  ^  the  alienation  by  one  of  the  tenants  does  not 
change  the  nature  of  the  estate,  as  with  joint  estates;* 
on  the  death  of  either,  the  other  has  the  whole  estate,^ 
continuing  alone  his  or  her  former  holding,  and  not 
taking  by  survivorship  in  the  sense  that  a  surviving 
joint  tenant  does  ;^  on  absolute  divorce  they  become 
tenants  in  common  or  joint  tenants  ;''  both  may  assign 
the  inheritance  absolutely  or  by  way  or  mortgage,* 
although  in  Indiana,  under  a  statute  forbidding  con- 
tracts of  married  women  as  sureties,  a  mortgage  of  the 
estate  for  a  debt  of  the  husband  was  held  void  as  to  the 
wife  ;^  they  may  divide  it  by  consent,'"  and  sometimes 
statutes  expressl}''  authorize  partition  i^roceedings." 
During  coverture,  the  husband  has  at  common  law  his 
estate  jure  uxoris,'^'^  with  the  right  to  the  rents  and  pro- 
fits ;  13  he  holds  the  property  subject  to  his  control,  use, 
and  possession ;  '*  only  this  estate  for  their  joint  lives 
can  be  aliened  by  him,'^  or  taken  for  his  debts,'*  or 
charged  by  him  with  a  mechanic's  lien.''  This  estate 
of  the  husband  during  coverture  has  probably  been 
abolished  by  separate  property  acts,  even  where  these 
acts  are  held  not  to  destroy  estates  by  entireties.'^  If 
husband  conveys  and  survives  he  is  bound.'* 

1  Bertles  v.  Noonan,  92  N.  Y.  lo2,  15G  ;  44  Am.  Rep.  361 ;  ante, 
J  SOS. 

2  MoCurdy  v.  Canning,  6  Pa.  St.  3n,  40.  S.  P.,  Baggs,  54  Ga.  95,  97  ; 
Chandler  v  Chenev,  37  Inrt.  391 ;  Hoffman  v.  Stigers,  28  Iowa,  302  ; 
Elliott  V.  Nichols,  4  Bush,  .502,  .505  ;  Marburg  v.  Cole,  49  Md.  402,  4U  : 
33  Am.  Rep.  26fi  ;  Frizzle  r  Bozier,  19  Mo.  408;  Den  r.  Hardenbergh, 
10  N.  J.  L.  42,  45  ;  18  Am.  Dec.  371  ;  D.'ii  r.  Gardner,  20  N.  J.  L.  o.56, 562  ; 
Moore,  47  X.  Y.  4P8  ;  7  Am.  Rep.  400;  Miller,  9  Abb.  Pr.  N.  S.  443; 
Thornton,  3  Rand.  179  ;  Bennett  v.  Child,  19  Wis.  362,  30.5. 

3  Hemingway  )'.  Scales,  46  Miss.  1,  17  ;  2  Am.  Rep.  .586  ;  Den  v. 
Hardenbergh,  10  N.  J.  I..  42,45;  18  Ami  Dec.  .^71;  McUermott  v. 
French,  15  N.  J.  Eq.  78,  SO  ;  Farmers  r.  Gregory,  49  Barb.  1.55,  162 ; 
Dias  c.  Glover,  1  Hoff".  Ch.  71,  70  ;  Torrey,  14  N.  Y.  4:»,  432  ;  Bennett 
V.  Child,  19  Wis.  362,  365. 

4  Shaw  V.  Hearsaj',  5  Mass.  521,  522 

H.  &  W.  —  40. 


§   337  ESTATES   OF   HUSBAND   AXD   WIFE.  4T0 

5  Marbourg  v.  Cole,  49  Mel.  402,  411  ;  33  Am.  Rpp.  26fi.  S.  P.,  Mvers 
V.  Reed,  17  Fed.  Rep.  401,  403  ;  McDermott  i'.  French,  15  X.  J.  Eq.  TS, 
80;  Den  v.  Hardenbergh,  10  N.  J.  L.  42,  46  ;  18  Am.  Rep.  :i71  ;  Dias  v. 
Glover,  1  Hoff.  Ch.  71,  76  ;  Bertles  v.  Nooiian,  92  N.  Y.  152, 156  ;  44  Am. 
Rep.  361 ;  French  v.  aiehan,  56  Pa.  St.  286,  28<J. 

6  Washburn  v.  Burns,  34  X.  J.  T>.  IS,  10,  20.  .S.  P.,  2  Blackst.  Com. 
182  ;  Hoffman  v.  Stigers,  2S  Iowa,  302,  306  ;  sujyra,  n.  5. 

7  Discussed  post,  ?  300. 

8  McDuff  ?'.  Beaucbamp,  50  Miss,  sr.l,  o-ie  ;  Thomas  v.  DeBaum,  14 
N.  J.  Eq.  37,  40. 

9  Dodge  I'.  Kinzy  (Ind.  1S*^),  18  Cent.  L.  J.  173,  2:». 

10  Washburn  v.  Burns,  34  X.  J,  L,.  18,  13. 

11  Bertles  v.  Xooaan,  92  X.  Y,  152,  J60  ;  44  Am.  Rep.  361. 

12  Hemingway  v.  Scales,  42  Miss.  I,  16;  2  Am.  Rep.  5S6;  Hall  v. 
Stephens,  65  :Mo.  670,  679;  27  Am.  Rep.  302;  Washburn  v.  Burns,  34 
N.  J.  L.  18,  20  ;  Farmers  v.  Gregory,  49  Barb.  1.5.5,  1G2  ;  Bertles  v. 
Noonau,  92  X.  Y.  152,  156  ;  44  Am.  Hep.  861  [  Bennett  v.  Child,  19  Wis. 
362,  365  ;  ante,  U  146-150. 

13  Farmers  i\  Gregory,  49  Barb.  155, 163  !  tupra,  n.  12. 

14  Bertles  v.  Noonan,  92  N.  Y.  152,  156  j  44  Am.  Rep.  361 ;  gup  rn 
n.  12. 

16  Bennett  v.  Child,  19  Wis.  362,  36.5.  Bee  Whedon  v.  Gorham,  30 
Conn.  408 ;  Almond  v.  Bonnell,  76  111,  6;>i ;  Chandler  r.  Cheney,  37 
Ind.  391  ;  Davis  v.  Clark,  26  Ind.  424  ;  McTighe  v.  Bringhoff,  42  Iowa, 
455;  Cochran  i'.  Kernev,  9  Bush,  199:  (ianier  v.  Jones,  52  Ho.  68; 
Brown  r.  Gale,  5  X.  H.  416  ;  Carter  v.  Reals,  44  N.  II.  407  ;  Thomas  v. 
Deliaum,  14  X.  J.  Eq.  37,  40 ;  Jackson  v.  McConnell,  19  Wend.  175, 178  ; 
Gentry  v.  Wagstair,  3  Dev.  270  ;  Stoebler  v.  Knerr,  5  Watts,  181  ; 
French  r.  Mehan,  56  Pa.  St.  286  ;  Ames  v.  Xorman,  4  Sneed,  683,  697 ; 
Roanes  v.  Archer,  4  Leigh,  550  ;  Brownson  v.  Hill,  16  Vt.  309  ;  Howe 
V.  Blanden,  21  Vt.  315  ;  liennett  v.  Child,  19  Wis.  362. 

17  Washburn  v.  Burns,  34  X.  J.  L.  18,  20. 

18  McClurg  V.  Canning,  64  Pa.  St.  39,  41 ;  post,  i  308, 

19  Kip,  33  X.  J.  Eq.  213,  216.  S.  P.,  Wales  v.  CofHn,  13  Allen,  213  ; 
Shroyer  r.  Wickell,  55  Mo.  264;  Berrigan  v,  Fleming,  2  Lea,  271, 
275. 

15  Den  v.  Gardner,  20  X.  J.  L.  556,  560  ;  aupra,  n.  12  ;  infra,  n.  19. 

^  307.  Effect  of  statutes  referring  to  joint  tenancies  upon 
tenancies  by  entireties.  —  Statutes  providing  tliat  a  deed 
to  one  or  more  persons  shall  not,  as  it  did  at  common 
law,  create  a  joint  tenancy,  but  sliall  create  a  tenancy 
in  common,  unless  it  expressly  creates  a  different  one, 
have  no  application  to  tenancies  by  entireties, ^  because 
husband  and  wife  are  one  person, ^  because  a  joint  es- 
tate is  not  an  estate  by  the  entirety,^  and  because  a 
general  act  will  not  modify  the  special  law  of  husband 


471  ESTATKS   OF   HUSUAXD   AND   WIFE.  §   308 

and  wife  unless  it  expressly  so  provides.*    In  a  few 
States  a  contrary  rule  prevails.^ 

1  Robinson  v.  Eaarle,  11  Ark.  202,  20f;  ;  Arnold,  30  Ind.  305,  306; 
Lowell,  22  Pink.  215.  221  ;  Saaw  r.  Hearsay,  .5  ;\Iass.  521,  52.'{;  Fladung 
V.  Rose,  58  Md.  13,  20;  Marburg  v.  Colo,  -10  Md.  -102,  412;  33  Am.  Rep. 
266;  McDuff  V.  Beauchamp,  50  Miss.  531,  5"5;  Heniingwav  v.  Scales, 
42  Miss.  1,  17;  2  Am.  Rep.  .536;  Den  v.  Hardenbergh,  10  N.  J.  Eq.  42, 
47  ;  18  Am.  Dec.  371  ;  Thomas  v.  DcBaum,  1-t  N.  J.  Eq.  37,  40  ;  MnDer- 
mottii.  French,  15  N.  J.  Eq.  7^  80;  Wright  v.  Saddler,  2i>  N.  Y..320, 
323;  Jackson  v.  Stevens,  16  Johns.  110,  li.i,  116  ;  Jackson  v.  Carey,  16 
Johns.  301,  ;505  ;   McCurdy  v.  Canning,  64  Pa.  St.  30,  40. 

2  Shaw  V.  Hearsay,  5  Mass.  521,  523 ;  ante,  ?§  39,  303. 

3  Den  v.  Hardenbergh,  10  N.  J.  L.  42,  45,  48  ;  18  Am.  Dec.  371 ;  ante, 
i  304. 

4  Hemingway  v.  Scales,  42  Miss.  1, 17  ;  2  Am.  Rep.  536;  ante,  ?  13. 

5  Walthall  v.  Goree,  36  Ala.  723  ;  HolTman  r.  Stigers,  23  Iowa,  302, 
."07  ;  Clark,  56  N.  H.  105,  110.    Consult  post,  i  308. 

g  308.  Effaot  of  married  women's  separate  property  acts 
on  estates  by  entireties.  —  It  is  a  general  rule  that  married 
women's  separate  property  acts  do  not  affect  the  rela- 
tion and  unity  of  husband  and  wife  except  so  far  as 
they  expressly  refer  thereto  or  as  is  necessary  to  ren- 
der them  efficient ;'  and  since  estates  by  entireties  are 
not  injurious  to  married  women,  or  within  the  scope  of 
these  acts,^  it  is  in  accordance  with  this  rule  and  the 
better  view,  that  it  is  held  in  the  United  States  court 
for  the  district  of  Oregon,  etc.,  in  Arl^ansars,  Indiana, 
Mainland,  Michigan,  Mississippi,  Missouri,  Now  York, 
Pennsylvania,  Wisconsin,  and  elsewhere,  that  these 
separate  property  acts  do  not  destroy  estates  by  entire- 
ties.^ But  in  England,  Alabama,  Illinois,  Iowa,  and 
New  Hampshire,  it  is  on  the  other  hand  hold  that  es- 
tates by  entireties  depend  on  the  unity  of  liusband  and 
wife,  and  that  the  separate  property  acts  have  destroyed 
this  unit  J'  as  far  as  property  is  concerned,  and  that  with 
the  existence  of  this  unity  estaters  by  entireties  have 
cfeased  to  exist,*  and  husband  and  wife  hold  property 
vesting  in  them  both  as  tenants  in  common  or  as  joint 
tenants,^  with  the  same  rights  in  their  respective  inter- 


I  308  ESTATES  OF  HUSBAND  AXD  WIFE.  472 

ests  of  each  other  as  they  would  have  if  such  other  were 
co-tenant  with  a  stranger.^  Tliese  statvites  are  prospect- 
ively construed,'  and  affect  only  such  property  as  is 
situate  in  the  State  where  they  have  been  passed.^ 
Where  it  is ,  settled  that  separate  property  acts  do  not 
destroy  estate':!  b;,'  entireties  with  their  essential  inci- 
dents of  inseverableness  and  survivorship,  how  far 
they  affect  the  husband's  riglits  over  such  estates  dur- 
ing coverture  is  a  different  question.^  For  the  hus- 
band's right  to  the  rents  and  profits  during  coverture, 
and  to  assign  them  for  the  period  of  his  life,  and  the 
liability  of  the  rents  and  profits  of  his  debts,  are  not 
essential  incidents  of  the  estate  by  entireties,^"  but  are 
incidents  of  the  husband's  estate  in  liis  Avife's  propertj^ 
Jure  uxoris  during  coverture  ; ''  and  as  this  latter  estate 
is  no  doubt  destroyed  by  separate  property  acts,'"-'  and 
the  wife  is  secured  in  lier  propei'ty  acquii'ed  by  grant, 
etc.,"  it  would  seem  that  the  husband's  control  of  the 
estate  by  entireties  is  destroj'-ed ; '*  that  the  husband 
and  wife  have  each  the  right  to  all  the  rents  and  jn-o- 
fits ;  '5  that  only  |iy  agreement  can  tliere  be  an  appor- 
tionment;'*' and  that  the  rents  and  profits  can  be 
assigned  during  coverture  onh^  by  their  joint  act,"^  and 
are  liable  during  coverture  only  for  the  joint  debts  of 
husband  and  wi.'o,'*  and  after  the  dissolution  of  the 
marriage  only  for  tlie  debts  of  the  survivor.'"  But 
these  questions  are  surrounded  witli  difficulty  and  ha\o 
not  often  been  the  subject  of  judicial  determination. 

1  Bertles  v.  Jfoonan,  02  N.  Y.  I.'i2, 157,  165  ;  44  Am.  Rep.  SGI ;  nnfe, 
iU. 

2  Diver,  56  Pa.  St.  lOf!,  100. 

3  Mvers  v.  Ree<1,  17  Fofl.  R^p.  401,  402,  40^  ;  Robinson  r.  Eag-Ic.  21 
Ark.  202,  207  ;  Carver  i\  Smith,  !)0  Itul.  222,  225  ;  Hnlett  v.  Iiilow,  57 
Incl.  412,  414;  2f.  Am.  Rep.  C4,  <w :  Cliaiullcr  v.  C'heenev,  37  IikI.  301, 
414;  Marhoiirg  v.  Cole,  49  Mtl.  4fr2,  4i;{ ;  3:t  .-Vm.  Rep.  2G(i;  FlacUing  r. 
Rose,  5s  :\i.i.  Hi,  24 ;  Fisher  ?•.  Perriii.  2.5  Mich.  M7,  :V>i  ;  Duff  r.  Be.tu- 
c'lunip,  50  ."Miss.  531,  .535  ;  Hnll  ?•.  .Stephens,  05  Mo.  670, 681 ;  27  Am.  Rep. 
f02  ;  Bertles  v.  Noonan,  02  N.  V.  152,  15S  ;  44  Am.  Rep.  361  ;  Mntteson 
V.  N.  Y.  Ceiitrai,  02  Barh.  373  ;  Farmers  v.  Gregory,  49  Barb.  155, 1G2  ; 


473  ESTATES  OF   HUSBAND   AND   WIFE.     ?§   309-310 

Goelet  V.  Gori,  31  Barb.  314,  319;  Beach  ■;'.  Hollister,  3  Hun,  519; 
Feeley  v.  Buckle,  28  Hun,  451  ;  Wood  v.  Conin,  54  How.  Pr.  95,  96  ; 
McCurdv  V.  Canning,  fi4  Pa.  St.  39,  41;  Diver,  56  Pa.  St.  106,  109; 
French  v.  Mahan,  56  Pa.  St.  2^9 ;  Bates  v.  Seelev,  46  Pa.  St.  248,  249  ; 
Bennett  v.  Child,  19  Wis.  362,  365,  366  ;  1  Bish.  M.  W.  438.  See  18  Cent. 
h.  J.  .326. 

4  Mander  v.  Harris,  Law  E.  24  Ch.  D:v.  222.  227,  230 ;  52  L.  J.  Ch. 
fiSO  ;  Walthall  v.  Goree,  36  Ala.  728  ;  Cooper,  70  til.  57,  64  ;  Hoffman  v. 
Stigers,  28  Iowa,  302,  307 ;  Ciark,  66  N.  H.  105,  110.  See  18  Cent.  X,.  J. 
326. 

5  Hoffman  v.  Stigers,  28  Iowa,  302,  307  ;    supra,  n.  4. 

6  Cooper,  76  111.  57,  64  ;  sxipra,  n.  4  ;  post,  §  310. 

7  Myers  ?'.  Reed,  17  Fed.  Rep.  401,  403  ;  Elliott  v.  Nichols,  4  Bush, 
502,  503  ;  wUe,  I  20. 

8  Myers  v.  Reed,  17  Fed.  Rep.  401,  404  ;  ante,  ??  33,  248. 

9  Bertles  v.  Noonan,  92  N.  Y.  152, 159, 164  ;  44  Am.  Rep.  3fil. 

10  See  ante,  ?  306. 

11  Discussed  o!!<e,  ??  146-150. 

12  Discussed  ante,  §  150. 

13  Discussed  ante,  i'i  217-243. 

14  MrCurdy  v.  Canning,  64  Pa.  St.  39,  40.  But  see  Hall  r.  Stephens, 
r,.i  3Io.  670,  67.S-681  ;  27  Am.  Rep.  302. 

15  See  Carver  v.  Smith,  90  Ind.  222,  227. 

16  See  Atcheson,  11  Beav.  48.5,  491 ;  Washburn  v.  Burns,  34  X.  J.  L. 
18,  19  ;  witc.  i  30b. 

17  See  Bertles  v.  Noonan,  92  N.  Y.  1.52,  1.56, 1.59, 164  ;  44  Am.  Rep.  361, 

18  But  see  Goelet  v.  Gori.  31  Barb.  314,  319. 

19  See  Pringlev.  Allen,  1  Hill  Ch.  1.3.5. 

g  309.  EiFect  of  divorce  on  estates  by  entirotios.  —  A 
divorce  a  vinculo  matrimonii  renders  husband  and  wife 
tenants  in  common  in  their  estates  by  entireties/  ex- 
cept, it  seems,  as  against  a  purchaser  before  the  di- 
vorce ;  -  but  if  the  property  be  conveyed  to  them  ex- 
pressly as  joint  tenants,  even  though  they  should  be 
deemed  to  liold  it  during  coverture  as  tenants  by  en- 
tireties, in  ca.se  of  divorce  tliey  liold  it  as  joint  tenants 
still.3 

1  Discussed  Stewart  M.  &  D.  1 441. 

2  Ames  v.  Norman,  4  Sneed,  683,  692, 

3  Lash,  68  Ind.  52R,  528. 

§  310.  Joint  and  common  estates  of  husband  and  wife. — 
If  joint  tenants  or  tenants  in  common  marry,  they  con- 


g    311  ESTATES   OF   HUSBAND  AND   WIFE.  474 

tiniie  joint  tenants  or  tenants  in  common. i  If  a  hus- 
band or  wife  is  a  joint  tenant  or  a  tenant  in  common 
with  a  third  party,  and  tliat  tliird  party  conveys  his 
interest  in  the  common  or  joint  estate  to  the  husband 
or  wife  of  his  co-tenant,  tlie  husband  and  wife  become 
tenants  in  common.^  And  in  the  case  of  devises  and 
conveyances  to  husband  and  wife  together,  though  it 
has  been  said  tliat  they  can  take  only  as  tenants  by  the 
entirety,^  the  prevailing  rule  is,  that  if  the  instrument 
expressly  so  i^rovides,  they  may  take  as  joint  tenants 
or  as  tenants  in  common  ;  *  the  married  women's  sep- 
arate property  acts,  even  when  they  do  not  destroj^ 
tenancies  by  entireties,^  give  the  wife  the  capacity  to 
take  as  a  separate  person.^  So  under  statutes,  husband 
and  wife  may  be  tenants  in  common  or  joint  tenants.^ 
In  all  cases  where  husband  and  wife  are  joint  tenants 
or  tenants  in  common,  each  has  in  the  interest  or 
estate  of  the  other  tlie  same  marriage  rights  as  he  Oi 
she  would  have  if  such  other  were  co-tenant  with  some 
third  party .8 

1  MeDermott  v.  French,  15  N.  J.  Eq.  78,  80. 

2  Moore,  47  N.  Y.  467  ;  7  Am.  Rep.  466. 

3  Brun  v.  Cover,  1  Hoff.  Ch.  71,  76.  See  Pollock  v.  Kellv,  fi  Ir. 
C.  L.  S67 ;  Green  r.  King,  2  Black.  W.  121  ;  Barber  »'.  Harris,  lo  Wend. 
617;  Jackson  t.  Stevens,  16  Johns.  115;  Rogers  v.  Benson,  5  Johns. 
Ch.  479  ;  Stiickey  v.  Keefe,  26  Pa.  St.  397. 

4  Fladnng  r.  Rose,  51  Md.  13,  22-2.\  See  4  Kent  Com.  363  :  Preston 
on  Estates,  131,  132;  Chandler  v.  Cheney,  37  Ind.  391  ;  HofTnian  r. 
Stivers,  28  Iowa,  302,310;  Marbours  v.  Cole,  49  Md.  402,412;  33  Am. 
Rep.  263 ;  MeDermott  v.  French,  15  N.  J.  Eq.  7S,  81 ;  Hicks  v.  Coch- 
ran, 4  Edw.  Ch.  107. 

5  Discussed  ante,  ?  308. 

6  Fladnng  v.  Rose,  58  Md.  13,  24. 

7  HofTman  v.  Stigers,  28  Iowa,  302,  .307. 

8  Den  v.  Hardenbergh,  10  X.  J.  U  42  ;  18  Am.  Dec.  371. 

§  311.  Rights  of  husband  and  wife  in  personalty  belong- 
ing to  them  both.  —  Personal  property  could  never  have 
been  said  to  have  been  lield  by  entireties, ^  for  at  com- 
mon law  any  personalty  of  the  wife  belonged  to  her 


475  ESTATES   OP   nUSBAMD   AND   WIFE.  §   311 

husband  if  he  reduced  it  to  his  possession  during  cov- 
erture,2  and  there  is  no  reason  why  this  should  not 
apply  to  property  in  which  he  is  jjartly  interested. 
And  yet  a  bequest  to  husband  and  wife  and  a  third 
party  equally,  gave  husband  and  Avife  only  one  share, 
a  moiety;  ^  and  any  chose  in  action  standing  in  their 
joint  names  went  absolutely  to  the  survivor.^  Even 
now,  as  at  common  law,  unless  some  special  circum- 
stances manifesting  a  different  intent  are  shown  to  de- 
feat the  right,*  the  surviving  husband  or  wife  takes  the 
whole  of  a  joint  promissory  note,^  no  matter  who  paid 
the  consideration  therefor^  (unless,  of  course,  creditors 
are  affected) ;  ^  so  of  a  bond ;  ^  or  a  fund  standing  in 
their  joint  names ;  i"  or  a  joint  deposit ;  ^^  unless  the 
presumption  of  an  intended  gift  or  equal  interest  is  re- 
butted ;  ^^  or  joint  naortgage  ;  ^^  or  stock  standing  in  their 
joint  names  ; "  or  joint  judgment, '^  recognizance,'^  de- 
3ree,'^  or  joint  interest  in  the  property  of  their  deceased 
child.'^  But  under  married  women  seprxate  property 
acts,  the  husband  has  no  longer  the  right  during  cov- 
erture to  use  up  or  reduce  to  his  own  possession  and 
ownership  the  personalty  of  his  wife  ;  ^^  though  it  has 
been  said  that  separate  property  acts  do  not  apply  to 
property  held  bj'^both  ;  ^^  so,  he  can  not  alone  release  an 
obligation  to  them  botli.^i  If  they  jointly  make  an  in- 
vestment, they  are  tenants  in  common  thereof,^'^  either 
equally,'^  or  to  the  extent  to  which  they  have  each  con- 
tributed,^'  and  there  is  no  survivorship ;  ^^  but  if  by 
their  joint  efforts  they  increase  the  separate  property  of 
the  wife,  such  increase  belongs  to  her  alone.^  When 
an  income  is  settled  on  them  jointly,  she  has  during 
coverture  the  right  to  a  share  thereof,^'  and  if  need  be, 
as  in  the  case  of  a  separation,  a  court  of  equity  will 
apportion  it.'^^  At  common  law,  the  interest  during 
coverture  in  a  joint  fund,  etc.,  was  not  affected  even  by 


2  811  ESTATES  OF  H;US3A>'D  axd  -svife.  476 

divorce.^  An  assignment  by  the  husband  of  the  Avhole 
joint  chose  in  action  during  coverture  passes  a  good 
title  if  he  survives  his  Avife.^"  The  usual  question  in 
the  case  of  joint  investments,  etc.,  is  one  of  the  intention 
of  the  parties.^!  Husband  and  wife  are  liable  jointly 
for  the  obligations  of  their  property .^^ 

1  Abshiro  i:  State,  53  Ind.  &4,  66  ;  Wait  v.  Bovee,  Jo  Mich.  425,  -128  ; 
Polk  V.  Allen,  19  Mo.  467,  46S. 

2  Polk  !'.  Allen,  19  Mo.  467,  46S  ;  ante,  55  IB-VIS.'?. 

3  ■  Atcheson,  11  Beav.  4So,  4S8 ;  Bricker  v.  Whallev,  1  Vern.  2M ; 
Atty.-Gen.  v.  Backus,  9  Price,  30 ;  11  Price,  .>17 ;  Atty.-Gen.  v. 
Burney,  3  Younge  &  J.  531 ;  ante,  ?  303. 

4  Abshire  v.  State,  53  Ind.  64.  fiS  ;  Pender  v.  Bicken,  27  Miss.  2.52  ; 
Sandford,  45  X.  Y.  723,  726  ;  Hill  r.  Saunders,  7  Serg.  *;  R.  17  ;  Rich- 
ardson V.  Daggett,  4  Vt.  3.36,  344  ;  ante,  H  128,  123,  231  ;  infra,  notes  6-18. 

5  See  Shields  v.  Stillman,  48  Mo.  82,  86  ;  Marshall  v.  Cnitwell, 
Law  R.  20  Eq.  328,  339.    See  infra,  notes  22-26. 

6  Abshire  v.  State,  53  Ind.  64,  68 ;  Draper  r.  Jackson,  16  Mass.  480, 
486  ;  Work  V.  Glaskins,  33  Miss.  539,  513 ;  Shields  v.  Stilluian,  48  Mo. 
82,  86  ;  Sandford,  45  X.  Y.  723,  726  ;  Scott  v.  Simes,  10  Bosw.  314  ;  John- 
son t'.  Lusk,  6  Cold.  113,  119;  McMillan  v.  M;ison,  5  Cold.  263;  Rich- 
ardson V.  Daggett,  4  Vt.  3:56,  Mi  ;  Richard.son  i .  Slade,  30  Vt.  191. 

7  Abshire  v.  State,  53  Ind.  M,  6.8;  Sandford,  45  X.  Y.  723,  726; 
supra,  n.  6.  Presumedly  paid  by  him:  Work  v.  Glaskins,  33  Miss. 
53J,  513  ;  ante,  i  119. 

8  Johnson  v.  Lusk,  6  Cold.  113,  119  ;  ante,  5?  113-118. 

9  Coppin,  2  P.  Wms.  497  ;  Dunstan  v.  Burwell,  1  Wils.  224  ;  Lapri- 
mandage  v.  Teissier.  12  Beav.  206;  Pike  v.  Collins,  33  Me.  38,  43; 
Briggs  V.  Beach,  18  Vt.  11.5, 118. 

10  Batstone  v.  Salter,  Law  R.  10  Ch.  431,  4.33. 

11  Orphan  v.  Strain,  2  Bradf.  .^1 ;  ante..  ?  128. 

12  Marshall  i'.  Crutwell,  Law  R.  20  Eq.  328,  330. 

13  Deare  v.  Carr,  3  X.  J.  Eq.  313,  317. 

14  Dummer  v.  Pitcher,  5  Sim.  35,  43  ;  Craig,  3  Barb.  Ch.  76. 

15  Oglander  V.  Baston,  1  Vern.  316:  Deare  v.  Carr,  3  X.  J.  Eq.  513, 
516  ;  Schoonmaker  v.  Elmeudorf,  10  Johns.  49. 

16  Lodge  V.  Hamilton,  2  Serg.  &  R.  49L 

17  Adams  r.  Lavender,  McClel.  &  Y.  41,  57. 

18  Frankenfeld  v.  Gruver,  7  Pa.  St.  448. 

19  Discussed  ante,  U  165,  170,  176. 

20  Goelet  v.  Gori,  31  Barb.  314,  319  ;  ante,  5?  231,  .308. 

21  Trimble  v.  Rels,  37  Pa.  St.  44S;  MoKinney  v.  Hamilton,  51  Pa. 
St.  63,  65. 

22  Chambovet  v.  Cogney,  35  X.  Y.  Super.  474,  486  ;  Wait  v.  Bovee, 
35  Mich.  425,  429. 

23  Wait  I'.  Bovee,  35  ilich.  425,  428. 

24  McTighe  r.  Briaghofif,  42  Iowa,  4m,  458. 


477  ESTATES   OF   HUSBAND   AND   WIFE.  g^-J. 

25  Wait  V.  Bovec,  35  ilich.  -iZo,  423. 

26  Norton  v.  Craig,  &S  Me.  275,  276  ;  ante,  ?§  87,  203,  227. 

27  Lee  V.  Zabriskie,  28  X.  J.  Eq.  -122,  -123,  429. 

2s  See  Atcheson,  II  Beav.  -ISS,  488,  491 ;  Lee  v.  Zabriskie,  2S  N.  J 
Eq.  422,  428,  429. 

23  Bullonk  V.  Zillev,  1  N.  J.  Eq.  489,  493;  Vreeland  r.  Kyno,  26 
N.  J.  Eq.  160  ;  27  N.  J.  Eq.  522  ;  Beach  v.  Hollister,  5  Thomp.  &  C. 
5")^ ;  S  Hun,  519  ;  Ames  r.  Norman,  4  Sneecl,  6S3  ;  McCollum,  1  Heisk. 
665;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  441. 

30  Slavmaker  v.  Genvsbursr,  10  Pa.  St.  373,  376.  See  Knimbaar  -J. 
Burt,  2  Wash.  C.  C.  406 ;  Outcalt  c.  Van  Winkle,  2  N.  J.  Eq.  5i:!. 

31  Consult  Traxsaotioxs  Bktwkex  Husb-axd  and  Wife,  ante. 

S2    Keinian  v.  Hamilton,  111  Mass.  245,  247. 


g  312  COMMUNITY   .^ROPEKTT.  478 

CHAPTER  XVII. 

COMMUNITY   PROPERTY. 

i  312.  Characteristics,  origin,  and  history  of  community  system. 

J  313.  Statutes  relating  to  community  property. 

J  314.  What  is  and  is  not  community  property. 

i  315.  Rights  of  liusband  during  coverture  over. 

1  316.  Rights  of  wife  during  coverture  over. 

2  317.  Rights  of  creditors  of  husband  and  wife  over. 
g  318.  Disposition  of,  on  divorce  or  death. 

J  319.    Conflict  of  laws  a.s  to. 

§  312.  Charact9ristics,  origin,  and  Mstory  of  community 
system.  —  The  central  idea  of  the  coiiiui unity  system  is 
that  marriage  creates  a  partnershiiJ  in  property  between 
husband  and  wife,  and  that  all  property  resulting  from 
the  labor  of  both  or  either  of  them,  and  all  property 
vesting  in  them  or  either  of  them,  except  by  gift,  devise, 
bequest,  or  descent,  enures  to  the  benefit  of  both  of 
them ;  ^  and  though  community  property  has  not  all 
the  incidents  of  partnership  property,  it  has  many  of 
them,  and  is  commonly  spoken  of  as  partnership  prop- 
erty.* This  system  belongs  to  the  civil  law  and  not  to 
the  common  law,^  it  prevailed  in  France,*  Spain,^  and 
Mexico,®  and  was  brought  into  those  States  ^rhich  were 
colonized  from  these  countries ;  ®  it  now  exists  under 
statutes  in  California,^  Louisiana,  Nevada,  Texas,^  and 
Idaho  ; '  and  it  formerly  existed  in  Missouri, i" 

1  See  discussions,  po«<,  U  314-318. 

2  Buchanan,  S  Cal.  507,  503  ;  La.  Civ.  Code  1875,  J  2399  ;  Wilkinson, 
20  Tex.  242,  244  ;  Cartwright  v.  Hollis,  5  Tex.  163. 

3  See  Cartwright,  18  Tex.  628  ;  1  Burge  Col.  &  For.  Laws,  202,  263, 
et  seq.,  277,  et  seq.  ;  ante,  i  7. 

4  LeBreton  i'.  Miles,  8  Paige,  261,  266-269. 

5  Meyer  v.  Kinzer,  12  CaL  247,  251 ;  Childress  v.  Cutler,  16  Mo. 
24,  41. 

6  Buchanan,  8  Cal.  507,  510 ;  Fuller  v.  Furguson,  26  Cal.  546. 

7  Buchanan,  8  Cal.  507,  510  ;  Childress  v.  Cutler,  16  Mo.  24,  41. 


479  COMMUNITV  PROPKRTY.  §  313 

S  See  statutes,  post,  I  313. 
0  Ray,  1  Idaho,  X.  S.  5G6. 
10    Childress  v.  Cutler,  18  Mo.  24,  ■». 

§  313.  Statutes  relating  to  community  property.  —  In 
California  by  statute  a  husband  and  wife  may  hold 
property  as  joint  tenants,  tenants  in  common,  or  as 
community  property  .^  All  property  of  the  husband  or 
wife,  owned  by  him  or  her  respectively  before  mar- 
riage, and  that  acquired  after  marriage  by  gift,  bequest, 
devise,  or  descent,  with  the  rents,  issues,  and  profits 
thereof,  is  respectively  his  or  her  separate  property; 
all  other  property  acquired  after  marriage,  by  either 
husband  or  wife,  or  botli,  is  community  property.'' 
The  husband  has  the  management  and  control  of  the 
community  projierty,  with  the  like  absolute  power  of 
disposition  (other  than  testamentary)  as  he  has  of  his 
separate  property.*  When  alimony  is  allowed  the 
wife,  resort  must  be  had  first  to  the  community.* 
When  the  husband  and  wife  are  divorced,  the  com- 
munity is  distributed  in  different  ways  depending  on 
the  grounds  for  the  divorce  and  the  respective  inno- 
cence and  guilt  of  the  parties.^  The  wife  cannot  dis- 
pose of  the  community  or  any  part  thereof,  except 
such  as  has  been  awarded  her  as  alimony,  by  will,  but 
the  husband  succeeds  to  the  whole  of  it  without  admin- 
istration;^ the  husband  can  disjjose  of  half  of  it  by 
will,  and  the  whole  of  it  is  subject  to  his  debts,  the  bal- 
ance goes  to  the  wife,^  The  statutory  provisions  in 
Nevada*  ani  Texas*  are  almost  identical  with  those  of 
California.  But  the  provisions  of  the  Louisiana  Civil 
Code  are  somewhat  different.  This  Code  i^rovides,  that 
by  marriage  a  community  or  partnershij)  of  acquets  or 
gains  is  created,'"  to  which  belong  all  the  profits  of  all 
the  effects  of  which  the  husband  has  control,  all  i)ro- 
ducts  of  joint  labor,  all  estates  acquired  during  cover- 


g  314  COMMUNITY  PROPERTY.  480 

tiire,  all  the  fruits  and  increase  of  separate  property  or 
labor/^  but  not  such  increase  in  value  of  separate  prop- 
erty as  is  due  to  extrinsic  causes  ;  '•'  and  which  is  sub- 
ject to  all  the  debts  of  husband  and  wife  during 
coverture; ^3  provided  that  the  wife  may  escape  tlie 
liabilities  of  the  partnershii)  by  renouncing  the  benefits 
thereof ;  '^  and  after  the  death  of  one  of  the  parties,  the 
net  community  is  divided  between  the  survivor  and 
the  heirs  of  the  deceased.'^  These  statutes  are  to  a 
great  extent  deciaratoiy  of  previously  existing  law,'* 
and  are  construed  alike  in  these  several  States.'' 
These  statutes  take  efFoct  only  in  the  absence  of  agree- 
ment between  the  parties,  as  these  may  establish  their 
property  rights  by  contract. '^ 

1  Hart's  Cat.  Civ.  Code,  1331,  ?  181 ;  Mario w  v.  Barlew,  53  Cal.  45f>, 
453  ;  :Nev.  C.  L,.  I87J,  {  153. 

2  Hart's  Cal.  Civ.  Co'-lc,  18S1,  U  162-104,  637.  See  Buclianan,  8  Cal. 
507  ;  Johnson,  11  Cal.  201 ;  Meytr  v.  K^iuzlt  12  Cal.  2-17  ;  .Sinitli,  12  Cal. 
21G  ;  Tompkins,  12  C.il.  114;  Pixloy  v.  Huggins,  15  Cal.  127  ;  Mott  r>. 
8-.;iith,  16  Cal.  SXi;  Burton  v.  Lies,  21  Cal.  87  ;  Adams  v.  Knowlton,  22 
Cil.  2S3  ;  Riloy  v.  Pehl,  23  Cal.  70  ;  Donald  v.  Badger,  23  Cal.  3U3  ;  Ful- 
ler V.  Furguson,2fi  Cal.  546;  Ramsdell  v.  Fuller,  28  Cal.  37  ;  Poclc  v. 
Brummagim,  31  Cal.  440;  Ewald  v.  Corbett,  32  Cal.  4:)3;  Hussey  t'. 
Castle,  41  Cal.  23J  ;  Althof  v.  ConUeim,  38  Cal.  230  ;  post,  I  314. 

3  Hart's  Cr.l.  Civ.  Code,  1881,  ?  172  ;  post,  §  315. 

4  Hart's  Cal.  Civ.  Code,  1881,  ?  141. 

5  Hart's  Cal.  Civ.  Code,  1881,  §?  146-148 ;  post,  I  318. 

6  Hart's  C.-.I.  Civ.  Code,  1881,  \  1401 ;  post,  §  318. 

7  Hart's  Cal.  Civ.  Code,  1881,  J  1402.  See  Beard  v.  Kno.x,  5  Cal. 
252. 

8  Nevada,  C.  L.  1S73,  ??  151,  153,  153,  160-162. 

9  Texas,  R.  S.  1379,  U  1633,  16.54,  2857,  2851-2853,  2867. 

10  La.  Civ.  Code,  1375,  I  23J3 ;  post,  I  314. 

11  La.  Civ.  Code,  1875,  H  2402,  2404  ;  post,  J  314. 

12  L.a.  Civ.  Code,  1875,  ?§  2407,  2408. 

13  La.  Civ.  Code,  1875,  ?  2403 ;  post,  ?  317. 

14  La.  Civ.  Code,  1875,  \  2410. 

15  La.  Civ.  Code,  1875,  i  2406  ;  post,  \  318. 

16  See  Buchanan,  8  Cal.  .507,  510  ;  ante,  i  312. 

17  Smith,  12  Cal.  216,  224 ;  Meyer  v.  Kinzer,  12  Cal.  247,  2.52, 

18  Marlow  v.  Barlew,  53  Cal.  4.56,  459 ;  La.  Civ.  Code,  1878,  ?  2424  ; 
Nev.  C.  L.  1S73,  §  170 ;  LeBreton  v.  Miles,  8  Paige,  261, 2G8. 


4S1  COMMrXITY   PKOPEKTY.  ?  314 

J  314.  What  is  and  what  is  not  community  property. — 
The  fundamental  idea  of  the  community  system  is  that 
marriage  makes  the  man  and  woman  partners,^  and 
that  all  property  acquired  after  marriage  is  therefore 
partnership  property  ;2  that  the  separate  property 
owned  by  each  at  the  time  of  marriage,  and  suc!i  other 
as  is  acquired  after  marriage  by  either  in  some  mode 
in  wliich  the  other  has  no  part,  as  by  gift,  descent,  dis- 
tribution, bequest,  or  devise,  is  the  contribution  of  each 
to  the  firm,  for  which  tlie  firm  must  account  to  each 
separateh'.^  And  though  by  the  statutes  property  ac- 
quired before  marriage  and  after  marriage,  in  the 
modes  above  specified,  is  kept  separate  and  is  not 
subject  to  the  control  of  the  other  partner,*  the  general 
rule  is,  that  all  the  increase  of  separate  property, 
whether  interest  of  money ,^  crops  and  rents  of  lands,^ 
or  ofi'spring  of  animals,^  is  community  property.^ 
Children  of  slaves  have  always  been  an  exception  to 
this  rule,^  and  the  California  Code  now  expressly  ren- 
ders the  increase  of  separate  property  also  separate 
property.!"  still,  it  is  doubtful  even  in  California 
whether  the  profits  of  an  investment  of  separate  prop- 
erty are  not  community  property, '^  and  it  is  settled 
that  the  profits  of  the  husband's  separate  business  are 
sei^arate  property  there  '^  as  elsewhere ;  '^  and  all  the 
products  of  the  labor  of  either  the  husband  or  the  wife 
are  everywhere  community  property ; "  for  example, 
the  accumulations  of  his  salary .^^  A  woman  not  mar- 
ried to  the  man  cannot  claim  community  property,!^ 
and  there  is  no  community  in  property  really  acquired 
before  marriage,  though  the  title  has  been  perfected 
after  marriage."  Property  acquired  by  the  compro- 
mise of  an  antenuptial  claim  is  community  property  ;!8 
so  is  propertj-  acquired  by  colonists  ;'9  headright  certi- 
ficates ; '"  title  acquired  by  set'lcrs,"!  though  the  djcd 

H.  &   W.-41. 


§  314  COMMUNITY  PROPERTY.  482 

was  obtained  by  the  husband  after  the  wife's  death  ; " 
so  are  improvements  on  separate  lands,^  tliough  for 
these  the  community  must  be  a  debtor  only,  as  they 
cannot  be  seized  and  sold  separately ;  ^'  so  property 
acquired  by  the  husband  while  the  wife  is  in  another 
State  with  his  consent,''^  or  after  he  has  abandoned  his 
wife,^^  or  while  he  is  living  apart  from  her  in  adultery 
with  another  Avoman,-^  for  it  is  not  a  question  what  part 
each  actually  took  in  the  acquisition. ^^  All  projperty 
acquired  by  husband  and  wife  or  either  of  them  during 
coverture  is  'prima  facie  community  property  ,^^  whether 
it  stands  in  the  name  of  both  of  them,3"  or  of  the  hus- 
band ^^  or  the  wife*'  alone  ;  it  seems  that  an  acquisition 
in  the  names  of  both  is  conclusively  community  ;  ^  and 
all  property  held  by  them  or  either  of  them  A\ithout 
written  title  is  likewise  presumed  to  be  community 
property.**  But,  except  in  the  case  above  mentioned, 
this  presumistion  is  rebuttable,*^  and  the  pro])erty  may 
be  shown  to  be  separate  property  by  clear  and  satisfac- 
tory proof  *^  that  the  jDroperty  was  acquired  in  one  of 
the  modes  named  by  statute  for  the  acquisition  of  sep- 
arate property,*'  or  that  it  was  exchanged  for  separate 
property,*^  or  was  given  in  paj^ment  of  a  separate  debt,-* 
or  was  purchased  with  separate  funds.''"  If  part  of  the 
consideration  was  separate  propertj^,  the  acquisition  is 
separate  property  pro  tanto,*^  or  the  community  is  in- 
debted to  tlie  husband  or  wife,  as  the  case  maj'  be,  to  the 
extent  that  his  or  her  sei^arate  funds  have  been  used." 
It  is  not  sufficient  in  order  to  show  a  separate  purchase 
by  a  husband,  to  prove  that  at  the  time  of  the  marriage 
he  had  considerable  property  and  his  wife  had  none.'* 
The  question  is,  however,  one  for  the  jurj-,**  and  the 
burden  of  proof  is  on  the  party  alleging  that  the  prop- 
erty is  separate ;  *'^  and  even  in  the  case  of  a  deed,  it 
maybe  proved  by  parol  that  the  property,  though  in 


|t 


4S3  cojiMUNixy  pkopkrty.  g  314 

the  nanio  of  0113  of  the  si^ouses,  is  really  separate  prop- 
erty,** except  as  against  a  bona  fide  purchaser  for  value 
from  the  community.*^  The  fact  that  a  deed  is  to  a 
Avife  alone,  is  not  even  j^rinia  facie  evidence  that  the 
property  is  her  separate  property  ;*^  it  must  be  shown 
that  her  funds  paid  for  it,*^  or  that  it  was  a  gift  from 
her  husband  ;  '•'^  and  to  prove  a  gift  from  her  husband, 
it  is  not  sufficient  to  prove,  as  at  common  law,^'  that 
the  deed  was  made  to  her  alone  at  his  reqviest.^^  It  is 
doubtful  whether  a  deed  between  husband  and  wife 
dividing  the  community  destroys  the  community.^ 
The  homestead  is  not  coinmunity  proiDerty.** 

1  De  Blane  v.  Lynch,  23  Tex.  25,  2S.  See  Buchanan,  8  Cal.  507,  "01 ; 
Wilkinson,  20  Tex.  242,  244  ;  Cartwright  v.  Ilollis,  o  Tex.  1G3  ;  Jones,  15 
Tex.  143, 147 ;  Woodley  v.  Adams.  55  Tex.  526,  531  ;  ante,  I  312. 

2  De  Blane  v.  Lynch,  23  Tex.  25,  28,  29. 

.3  This  idea  is  not  logically  carried  out,  but  as  to  its  existence,  see 
Palton,  Mvr.  Prob.  241,  245;  Durham  ,>i.  Williams,  32  La.  An.  162; 
Deiiegre,  30  La.  An.  275  ;  Rice,  21  Tex.  5-i,  Gfi. 

4  See  Lewis  v.  Johns,  24  Cal.  98, 102  ;  ante,  §  313. 

5  See  Cartwright,  18  Tex.  626,  633  ;  infra,  n.  8. 

G  Harrall,  12  La.  An.  549,  5.50  ;  De  Blane  v.  Lvnch,  23  Tex.  25,  27  ; 
Forbes  v.  Dunham,  24  Tex.  611,  612  ;  White  v.  Lynch,  26  Tex.  195,  196  ; 
infra,  n.  8. 

7  Bonner  7-.  Gill,  5  La.  An.  623,  630  ;  Howard  v.  York,  20  Tex.  670, 
672  ;  infra,  n.  8. 

8  George  v.  Ransom,  15  Cal.  322,  323  ;  Lewis,  18  Cal.  654,  65") ;  Borie, 

5  La.  89  ;  Bonner  v.  Gill,  5  La.  An.  62,1,  6:10  ;  Prondergast  v.  C.issidv,  8 
La.  An.  96,  97 ;  Glenn  v.  Elam,  3  La.  An.  611,  015 ;  Childers  v.  Johnson, 

6  La.  An.  634  ;  Harrall,  12  La.  An.  549,  .550  ;  Dodd  v.  OrlUson,  14  La.  An. 
C3,  OJ;  De  Blane  v.  Lynch,  23  Tex.  25,  27-2);  Forbes  v.  Dunham,  24 
Tex.  611,  612  ;  White  v.  Lynch,  26  Tex.  195,  l:)6  ;  Christmas  v.  .smith,  10 
Tex.  lii,  126,  130;  Yates  v.  Houston,  3  Tex.  433,  4",2;  Cartwright.  18 
Tex.  626, 62S,  033  ;  Howard  v.  York,  20  Tex.  670,  672  ;  Scott  d.  Maynard, 
Dall.  ^8,  SriO. 

9  Goner,  11  Rob.  (La.)  526,  527  ;  Young,  5  La.  An.  611,  612  ;  Cart- 
wright, IS  Tex.  626,  644. 

10  George  ?>.  Ransom,  15  Cal.  322,  323;  Lewis  v.  Johns,  24  Cal.  98, 
lO:  ;  ante,  i  313. 

11  Martin,  52  Cal.  2m,  237. 

12  Lewis,  18  Cal.  654,  659. 

13  Prendergast  v.  Cassidy,  8  La.  An.  96,  97  ;  infra,  n.  14. 

14  Higgins  v.  Johnson,  20  Tex.  389,  ,394.  S.  P.,  Stans,  Myr.  Prob.  5, 
6;  Lewis,  18  Cal.  6'Ji,  65);  Isaacson  v.  Mertz,  .33  La.  An.  595  ;  Yates  v. 
Houston,  3  Tex.  433, 455  ;  De  Blane  v.  Lynch,  23  Tex.  25,  28  ;  Chapman 
V.  Allen,  15  Tex,  278,  283. 


g  314  COMMUXITY    PI'.OPIiKTY.  484 

15  Stans,  Myr.  Prob.  5,  6. 

16  AViaters,  Myr.  Prob.  i:il,  V-il. 

17  Lake,  52  Cal.  428,  430. 
13  Pancoast,  57  Cal.  C20. 

13    Yates  )'.  Houston,  3  Tex.  4.3.3,  452. 

20  Yates  v.  Houston,  3  Tex.  43:3, 4-34-4.i6 ;  Parker  v.  Chance,  11  Tex. 
513,  517. 

21  Cannon  r.  Murphy,  31  Tex.  403  ;  E'lwurds  r.  James,  7  Tex.  .372, 
3's2.  Xot  if  husband  migrates  alone:  Mcilasters  r.  Miils,  30 Tex.  591, 
5J5. 

22  Hodge  v.  Donald,  55  Tex.  344.  But  see  Caudle  t».  Welden,  32  Tex. 
355,  356. 

23  Palton,  Myr.  Prob.  241,  246 ;  Whiteman  v.  Blanc,  28  La.  An.  4:!0  ; 
Rice,  21  Tex.  58,  66. 

24  Rice,  21  Tex.  58,  67  ;  svpra,  n.  23. 

25  Moore  v.  Thibodeaux,  4  La.  An.  74,  76. 

26  ^\■inters,  Myr.  Prob.  131, 133. 

27  Ronth,  57Tex.  533,  507. 

28  De  Blane  v.  Lynch,  23  Tex.  25.  23. 

29  Althof  V.  Conheim,  .38  Cal.  230,  233  ;  Planchet,  29  La.  An.  520,  522  ; 
Chapman  v.  Allen.  15  Tex.  278,  283.  S.  P.,  Martin,  52  Cal.  2:i5,  237; 
Hnssey  v.  Castle,  41  Cal.  239,  241  ;  Peck  v.  Brummagim,  31  Cal.  440, 
445;  Ewald  V.  Corbett,  32  Cal.  493,  498;  Buchanan,  8  Cal.  507,  509; 
■Tohnson,  11  Cal.  201,  205  ;  Smith,  12  Cal.  216,  224  ;  Mever  r.  Kinzer,  12 
Cal.  247,  252 ;  Tompkins,  12  Cal.  114,  124  ;  Pixley  r.  Huggins,  15  Cal.  127, 
130;  Burton  v.  Li^^s,  21  Cal.  87,  91  ;  Adams  v.  Knowlton.  22  Cal.  283, 
283  ;  Riley  v.  Pehl,  23  Cal.  70,  74  ;  Repplier  t\  Gow,  1  La.  478  ;  Bostwick 
V.  Gasquet,  11  La.  537  ;  Ford,  1  La.  207  ;  Forbes,  U  La.  An.  .326  ;  Webb 
1'.  Peck,  7  La.  An.  92;  Troxler  v.  CoUev,  33  La.  An.  425:  Smallev  i'. 
Lawrence,  9  Rob.  211 ;  Tex.  R.  S.  1879,  ?  28-53;  Love  r.  Robertson,  7 
Tex.  6,  11  ;  56  Am.  Dec.  41 ;  Lott  v.  Keach.  5  Tex.  3!H,  3,%  ;  Houston  v. 
Civil,  8  Tex.  240, 242  ;  Galliard  v.  Chesnev,  13  Tex.  3.37  ;  Zorn  v.  Barber, 
45  Tex.  5!3  ;  Wheat  v.  Owens,  15  Tex.  243 ;  Storv  v.  Marshall,  24  Tex. 
307  ;  Smith  v.  Boguet,  27  Tex.  323  ;  Routh,  57  Tex.  589,  597. 

30  Ramsdoll  v.  Fuller,  28  Cil.  37,  42  ;  Tally  v.  Heffner,  29  La.  An. 
533,  5S4  ;  Houston  v.  Civil,  8  Te.x.  240,  242 ;  supra,  n.  29. 

31  Buchanan,  8  Cal.  607,  503  ;  Planchet,  29  La.  An.  520,  522  ;  Zimpel- 
man  v.  Robb,  53  Tex.  274,  2S1 ;  sttj)ra,  n.  29. 

.32  PLxley  v.  Huggins,  15  Cal.  127, 130, 131 ;  Donald  !•.  Badger,  23  Cal. 
303,  398  ;  Riley  v.  Pcdil,  23  Cal.  70,  74  ;  Mott  v.  Smith,  16  Cal.  5;».  557  ; 
Troxler  t\  Collov,  Si  La.  An.  4i5  ;  Love  v.  Robertson,  7  Tex.  6,  10; 
\Vells  V.  Cochran,  13  Tex.  127, 128 ;  siijyra,  n.  29. 

.33  Tally  r.  Hefifner,  29  La.  An.  583,  .584.  Unless,  of  course,  the  deed 
makes  them  joint  tenants  or  tenants  in  common,  ante,  ^313;  or  a 
trust  is  proved,  as  at  common  law,  ante,  H  132,  311. 

.31  Lott  V.  Keach,  5  Tex.  334,  396.  .S.  P.,  Meyer  v.  Tvinz?r,  12  Cal. 
247,252;  Repplier  v.  Gow,  1  La.  47S ;  Bostwick  v.  (iusquet,  11  La.  .537  ; 
Le  Gierse  v.  Moore,  59  Tex.  470, 471 ;  Edrington  r.  Mayfield,  5  Tex.  36:1, 
368  ;  sxipra,  n.  29. 

as    Smith,  12  Cal.  216,  224  ;  infra,  n.  36. 

36  Ramsdell  v.  Fuller,  28  Cal.  37, 42  ;  Peck  v.  Brummagim,  31  Cal. 
443,  447  ;  Ford,  1  La.  207  ;  Troxler  v.  Colley,  33  La.  An, 425  ;  Houston  r. 
Civil,  8  Tex.  240,  242 ;  Chapman  v.  Allen, "l5  Tex.  278. 233  ;  supra,  n.  29. 


485  COMMUNITY   PROPERTY.  ?  315 

37  Mevpr  v.  Kinzer,  12  Cal.  247,  252  ;  Smith,  12  Cal.  2IG,  224  ;  Hous- 
ton V.  Civil,  8  Tox.  24,1,  2-12. 

38  Meyer  v.  Kinzer,  12  Cal.  247,  253  ;  Parker  v.  Chance,  U  Tex.  513. 
517. 

39  Love  V.  Robertson,  7  Tex.  6,  9. 

40  Mott  V.  Smith,  16  Cil.  5.53,  557  ;  Ramsdell  v.  Fuller,  23  Cal.  37,  42  ; 
Lavenant  v.  Le  Breton,  1  La.  520,  52.5;  Troxler  v.  Colley,  33  La.  An. 
425  ;  Love  V.  Robertson,  7  Tex..  G,  11  ;  Claiborne  v.  Tanner,  18  Tex.  G9, 
71  ;  sujiva,  n.  2y. 

41  Claiborne  v.  Tanner,  13  Tex.  63.  77.  See  Evvald  v.  Corbett,  32 
Cal.  41)3,  4!KS;  Webb,  Myr.  Prob.  'J3 ;  Lawson  v.  Ripley,  17  La.  238; 
Denegre,  30  La.  An.  275  ;  Durham  v.  Williams,  32  La.  An.  162  ;  Braden 
r.  Gos9.  57  Tex.  37  ;  Mitchell  v.  Jlarr,  2S  Tex.  320  ;  Parker  v.  Chance, 
11  Tex.  513,  518  ;  Wells  ?'.  Cochran,  13  Tex.  127,  128  ;  Rice,  21  Tex.  5S,  Gti. 

42  See  Durham  v.  Williams,  32  La.  An.  162 ;  Rice,  21  Tex.  58,  C7. 

43  Schmeltz  v.  Garey,  49  Tex.  43. 

44  Rice,  21  Tex.  58,  G6. 

45  Donald  v.  Badger,  23  Cal.  393,  338  ;  Meyer  v.  Kinzer.  12  Cal.  247, 
251;  Ramsdell  v.  Fuller.  23  Cal.  37,  42;  Adams  i'.  Knowlton,  22  Cal. 
2o3.  288  ;  Smith.  12  Cal.  2i6,  224. 

46  Peck  V.  Brummagim,  31  Cal.  440,  448 ;  Ramsdell  t'.  Fuller,  28  Cal. 
37,  43  ;  Higgins  v.  Johnson,  20  Tex.  389,  394. 

47  Tallv  V.  Heffner,  29  La.  An.  583.  585;  Kirk  v.  Houston,  43  Tox. 
213 ;  Tavlor  v.  Murphy,  50  Tex.  2J1,  300  ;  Wallace  v.  Campbell,  54  Tex. 
b;.89. 

48  Wells  V.  Cochran.  13  Tex.  127, 128.  It  is,  of  course,  if  the  deed 
shows  it  to  be  acquired  in  one  of  the  ways  prescribed  by  statute  for 
the  acquisition  of  separate  property  :    ,Supra,  n.  4. 

43  Pixley  v.  Huggins,  15  Cal.  127, 131 ;  Meyer  rt.  Kinzer,  12  Cal.  247, 
253  ;  suj)ia,  n.  40. 

50  Peck  V.  Brummagim,  31  Cal.  440,  445  ;  Story  v.  Marshall,  24  Tex. 
307:  Braden  v.  Gose,  57  Tex.  37  ;  Parker  v.  Chance,  11  Tex.  513,  517  ; 
Higgins  u  Johnson,  20  Tex.  389,  395  ;  2)osl,  ?  315. 

51  Parker  v.  Chance,  11  Tex.  513,  519  ;  ante,  U  1-8, 129, 132. 

52  Parker  v.  Chance,  11  Tex.  513,  518. 

53  Marlow  v.  Barlew,  53  Cal.  456,  4G1. 

54  Tompkins,  12  Cal.  114,  124. 

2  315.  Eights  of  husband  during  coverture,  over  commu- 
nity property.  —  Though  the  husband  and  wife  have 
equal  interests  in  the  coininunity,i  during  the  cover- 
ture her  rights  are  passive,^  and  he  has  full  manage- 
ment and  control  of  the  propertj',^  and  may  deal  with 
it  almost  as  if  it  Avere  his  own.^  He  is  its  solo  represen- 
tative.^ It  is  liable  for  his  separate  debts.^  He  has 
full  power  to  dispose  of  it  absolutely  Avithout  her  con- 
sent :'  his  sole  deed  passes  communitA^  realty,^  his  sole 


I  315  C03CMUN1TY   PROPERTY.  486 

signature  assigns  community  promissory  notes,^  thougli 
standing  in  lier  name ;  '^  in  his  sole  name  he  sues  in 
ejectment,"  and  enforces  a  promissory'  note.^^  He  may 
give  the  property  away,'^  but  not  with  the  intent  to 
defraud  her  of  lier  riglits,"  in  view  of  divorce'^  or  of 
death,'"  thougli  lier  remedy  in  such  case  seems  con- 
fined to  a  bill  quia  timct.^''  So  he  maj'"  give  community 
jiroperty  to  liis  Avife  to  be  her  separate  propertj-,'^ 
where  no  fraud  on  creditors  exists.'^  And  tlie  prop- 
erty and  his  widow  are  bound  by  his  estoppel.'^''  But 
lie  cannot  aflect  tlie  interest  of  the  wife  by  will,^'  or  by 
any  instrument  to  take  etlect  after  his  deatli.'^  And 
after  her  death  lie  cannot  dispose  of  the  community 
except  to  pay  the  debts  thereof,-^  or  to  the  extent  of 
liis  own  interest.-*  Divorce  proceedings  alone  do  not 
atleet  his  rights,'^^  though  his  abandonment  of  his  wife 
may  give  her  important  powers.^^ 

1  De  Godev,  3n  Cal.  157,  Ifi-J ;  Wright  v.  Havs,  10  Tex.  130,  13T  ; 
00  Am.  Dec.  200  ;  ZimpL'lman  v.  Robb,  5a  Tex.  274,  281. 

2  Wright  V.  Hays,  10  Tex.  130,  133  ;  CO  Am.  Dec.  2u0 ;  jiost,  ?  31G. 

3  Mott  V.  Smith,  16  Cal.  .>«,  .=>.57  ;  Peck  ?•.  Brnmma^ini,  31  Cal.  -l-IO; 
447  ;  AUhuf  J'.  Conheim,  ;J8  Cal.  2:{0, 2:J;{ ;  Cheek  r.  IJeliows,  17  Tex.  (ili, 
61G  ;  ante,  i  313. 

4  Lord  r.  Hough,  43  Cal.  5S1,  585;  Pixley  v.  Huggins,  15  Cal.  127, 
131  ;  s>ii»a,  n.  3. 

5  Kelly  I'.  Robertson,  10  L.i.  An.  313. 

6  Forbes  v.  Dunham,  24  Tex.  611,  612  ;  post,  §  317. 

7  Pixlev  i>.  Huggins,  15  Cal.  127,  131  ;  Althof  v.  Conheim,  as  Cal. 
230,23!;  Walters  v.  Jewett,  2-i  Tex.  192,  l'J9,  201;  Berry  v.  Wright,  U 
Tex.  274  ;  Brewer  v.  Wall,  23  Tex.  .iSS ;  supra,  n.  3. 

8  Poe  ?'.  Brownrigg,  55  Te.x.  1.33, 137.  Not  the  homestearl :  Mabry 
V.  Harrison,  44  Te.x.  2o«. 

9  Herdmingway  v.  Matthews,  10  Tex.  207,  20S. 

10  Pixley  v.  Huggins,  15  Cal.  127, 130,  131  ;  ante,  \  214. 

11  Mott  V.  Smith,  16  Cal.  .KS,  .V>7. 

12  Wells  V.  Cochrum,  13  Tex.  127, 128. 

13  Lord  V.  Hough,  43  Cal,  631,  5S5  ;  supra,  n.  7. 

14  D"  Oorlev.  .31  Cal.  l.")7,  164  ;  Smith,  12  Cal.  216,  225,  2-:6  ;  Peck  v. 
Biumiiiagirn.  31  Cal.  440,441;  Lord  r.  Hough,  43  Cal.  .581,  585;  Coltoii, 
31  I,;i.  Am.  s57,  S.5J  ;  Edwurils  v.  James,  7  Tex.  38  ;  Scott  v.  Maynar;!, 
Dall.  548,  550. 

15  See  CoUon,  3G  La.- An.  S53,  853  ;  supra,  n.  14  ;  post,  I  318. 


4S7  C03IMUXITY   PEOPKKTV.  §  316 

13    See  De  Godey,  33  CaL  157, 164  ;  supra  n.  14  ;  post,  §  318. 

17  Greiner,  5S  Cal.  115, 119, 120. 

18  Peck  V.  Brummagim,  31  Cal.  440, 445  ;  ante,  I  414. 

13    Peck  V.  Brummagim,  31  Cal.  440,  446 ;  ante,  ??  113-118. 

20  Pvanny  v.  Miller,  51  Tex.  263,  263. 

21  Bearfl  v.  Knox,  5  Cal.  252,  256;  Buchanan,  S  Cal.  507,  510;  De 
Godey,  i^  Cal.  157,  IW  ;  Greiner,  58  Cal.  115, 113. 

22  Buchanan,  8  Cal.  507,  510. 

2'!  Johnson  r.  Harrison,  48  Tex.  457, 484, 531 ;  Verameadi  v.  Hutching, 
56  Tex.  414  ;  post,  i  318. 

24  Bennett  v.  Fuller,  23  La.  An.  663  ;  BiUgery,  34  La.  An.  387,  388. 

25  Lord  V.  Hough,  43  Cal.  5S1,  535.     Contra,  Tex.  R.  S.  1879,  §  2867. 

26  Zimpelman  v.  Robb,  53  Tox.  274  281 ;  post,  I  316. 

^  316.  Eights  of  tha  wife  during  coverture  over  the  com- 
mtinitj.  —  The  wife's  rights  over  the  conununity  are  as 
■well  defined  and  ascertained  as  those  of  the  husband  ;i 
though  once  called  "a  mere  expectancy,"  ^  her  interest 
is  equal  to  that  oi  her  husband  ;^  he,  however,  has  the 
full  management  thereof  during  coverture,*  and  she 
need  not  join  with  him  in  any  contract »  or  suit^  re- 
specting the  same.  While  his  rights  are  active,  hers 
are  passive;'  she  cannot  dispose  of  the  community 
without  his  consent  \^  her  mortgage  thereof  even  as  to 
her  interest  is  void  in  California,*  tliough  if  she  sur- 
vives her  husband,  it  may  be  enforced  against  her.'" 
With  her  liusband's  death  her  riglits  spring  into  activ- 
ity, and  she  lias  all  tlie  powers  of  a/emme  sole  over  her 
interest ;  '^  so,  under  tlie  various  statutes,  she  may,  for 
cause,  have  a  separation  of  property,  a  i:)artition  of  the 
community,'-  or  maj^  be  awarded  alimony  out  of  it,'^  or 
may  have  a  divorce  with  a  division  of  the  property.'* 
So,  if  lier  liusbanci  abandons  her  (llie  length  of  time  is 
not  important)  '^  and  refuses  to  support  her,"'  lier  rights 
over  the  community  quicken  into  vigorous  activity;'^ 
she  may  deal  with  it  in  his  place  ;  '^  she  may  sell  it  ;'9 
and  she  may  even  in  her  own  name  convey  real  estate 
standing  in  liis  name,  -so  that  subsequent  bona  fide  pur- 
chasers for  value  from  hiai  wiil  get  nothing.'"' 


g  317  COMMUNITY  PKOPERTY.  488 

1  De  Godey,  39  Cal.  157.  1C4. 

2  Van  Maren  v.  Johnson.  15  Cal.  303,  311. 

3  D?  Godey,  39  CI.  Vu,  161  ;  Wri-'.it  v.  Hays,  10  Tex.  130,  133;  00 
Am.  Dec.  200  ;  ZinipltiUaa  v.  Kobb.  5J  Tex.  274,  2s2. 

4  Peck  V.  Brummagim.  31  Cal.  440,  447 ;  ante,  I  31.5. 

5  Ilis^ins  v.  John.son,  20  Tex.  .339,  3:)5. 
G    Pixloy  V.  Iluggius,  1.5  Cal.  127,  l."I. 

7  Ilissins  %!.  John.son,  23  Tox.  333,  335  ;  supra  n.  3. 

8  Ilemmingvvay  v.  Matthews,  10  Tox.  207. 

9  Koraington  j;.  Higgins,  54  Cal.  620,  023  ;  Cal.  Civ.  Code,  1381,  ?  167. 

10  Parry  v.  Kelly,  52  Cal.  334,  335. 

11  Womack  v.  Shelton,  31  Tex.  532,  533  ;  post,  ?  313. 

12  JafF-ion  v.  Bordelon,  14  La.  An.  643, 619  ;  Compton  v.  Maxwell,  3.^ 
La.  An.  6J)  ;  Bel  Jen  v.  Hanlon,  32  La.  An.  85;  La.  Civ.  Code,  1875, 
a  24,  23  ;  Carlte  v.  Trotol,  105  U.  S.  751 ;  Kay,  1  Idaho  N.  S.  566. 

13  Cal.  Civ.  Code,  ISSl,  ?  141  ;  Stewart  M.  &.  D.  I  179. 

14  Cal.  Civ.  Code,  1881,  H  146-143  ;  Nev.  C.  L.  1373, 1 162  ;  Stewart  M. 
&  D.  II  358-3.19. 

15  Fullerton  V.  Doyle,  18  Tex.  3, 13. 

16  Consult  Winters,  Myr.  Prob.  131, 1.33  ;  Moore  v.  Tliiborlenux,  14 
La.  An.  74,  76  ;  Jailrion  v.  Bordelon,  14  La.  An.  618,613;  lli)uth,57Tex. 
583,  537;  Zimpleman  v.  Kobb,  53  Tox.  274,231  ;  Walker  v.  .strongfel- 
low,  30Tex.  570,573;  Fnllorton  ?>.  Doyle,  18  To.x.  L',  13;  Cheek  v.  Bel- 
lows, 17  Tex.  613,  616  ;  Wheat  v.  Owens,  15  Tex.  241,  245 ;  ante,  I  9a 

17  Wright  V.  Hays,  10  Tex.  1.30, 134  ;  00  Am.  Dec.  200. 

18  Cheek  v.  Bellows,  17  Tex.  613,  616. 

19  Walker  v.  Strongfellow,  30  Tex.  570,  573. 

20  Zimpleman  v.  Kobb,  53  Tex.  274,  231. 

g  317.  Rights  of  creditors  against  community  property. 
—  Tlio  comniuuity  jiroperty  is  liable  for  the  wife's  ante- 
nuptial debts/  but  not  on  any  contract  of  hers  made 
during  coverture,^  except  for  necessaries,^  which  is 
really  her  husband's  contract.*  It  is  lilcewise  liable  for 
all  antenui)tial^  nn:l  liostnuptial  debts  of  the  husband  ;  ^ 
as  ho  can  dispose  of  it  absolutely,  he  can  absolutely 
charge  it  with  his  debts. ^  But,  as  an  entirety,  it  is  not 
liable  for  any  debt  contracted  after  the  dissolution  of  the 
marriage. 8  Being  partnership  property ,3  on  the  disso- 
lution of  the  marriage  it  is  a  primary  fund  for  the  pay- 
ment of  all  the  community  debts'"  —  all  the  debts  for 
which  It  is  liable  must  be  settled  before  the  survivor  or 
the  heirs  of  the  deceased  have  liersonally  any  interest ;  ^^ 


489  coMMUxirY  ruopERTY.  §  317 

the  whole  fund,  not  a  mere  proportion  thereof,  is  liable 
lor  the  husband's  debts, i-  and  the  Iiusband  may  sell  tlie 
community  for  the  purjiose  of  paying  any  debt  for 
which  it  is  liable.^^  In  Louisiana,  if  tlie  widow  accept 
the  community,  she  or  lier  estate  is  liable  for  one  half 
of  the  debts,"  but  if  she  renounce  tlie  same,  neither  slie 
nor  her  estate  can  be  held  liable  at  all.^^  A  judgment 
against  both  husband  and  wife  can  be  enforced  against 
the  community  property  or  against  tlie  separate  prop- 
erty of  either  one  ;  '^  but  if  a  mortgage  has  been  given 
for  the  husband's  debts  which  covers  both  community 
jiroperty  and  separate  property  of  the  wife,  she  may 
have  the  community  property  exhausted  fii'st ;  ^^  and 
judgment  creditors  cannot  have  a  jmrt  of  the  commu- 
nity property  set  aside  by  metes  and  bounds  to  satisfy 
their  debts. '^  In  a  foreclosure  suit  against  the  com- 
munity, the  wife  should  be  made  a  party. ^^ 

1  Vlautiri  v.  Bumpus,  ?5  Cal.  214,  215 ;  Van  Maren  v.  Johnson,  15 
Cil.  SOS,  3i:i ,  Nash  v.  George,  6  Tex.  ZH,  337;  Taylor  v.  Murphy,  50 
Tex.  291,  300. 

2  Remington  v.  Higglna,  M  Cal.  620,  723  ;  ante,  §  316. 

3  Portis  7'.  Parker,  2C  Tex.  699,703,  Christmas  ik  Smith,  10  Tex. 
12^>,  12!) ;  Edringtou  v.  Mayfield,  5  Tex.  363,  36.S. 

4  Discussed  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ?  179  ;  ante,  |?  64,  n. 

5  Porter  v.  Parker,  22  Tex.  699,  703,  705  ;  14  Tex.  166, 170. 

6  McDonald  v.  Badger,  23  Cal.  393,  398 ;  Adams  v.  Knowlton,  22 
Cal.  283,  288  ;  Tompkins,  12  Cal.  114,  124  ;  Lett  v.  K^ach,  5  Tex.  394,  396  ; 
Edrington  v.  Mayfield,  5  Tex.  363,  368  ;  Forbes  v.  Dunham,  24  Tex.  611, 
ei2  ;  Jones,  15  Tex.  143, 147. 

7  Tompkins,  12  Cal.  114, 124  ;  ante,  I  315. 

8  Thezan.  23  La.  An.  442,  444. 

2  Woodley  v.  Adams,  55  Tex.  526,  531  ;  ante,  ?  314. 

10  Christmas  v.  Smith,  10  Tex.  123, 129. 

11  Jones,  15  Tex.  143, 147;  po«<,§  318. 

12  Tompkins,  12  Cal.  114, 124. 

13  Good  V.  Combs,  28  Tex.  34,  51 ;  ante,  ?  313. 

14  Ludeling  v.  Felton,  29  La.  An.  719. 

15  Ecihl  V.  Martin,  29  La.  An.  15, 16  ;  ante,  ?  313. 

16  Howard  v.  North,  5  Tex.  200,  293  ;  51  Am.  Dec.  769. 

17  James  v.  Jaqucs,  23  Tex.  320,  ,324. 


g  318  COMMUNITY   Pr^OPERTY.  490 

18  Good  V.  Combs,  28  Tex.  34,  51. 

19  Burton  v.  Lies,  21  Cal.  S7,  'Jl. 

§  318.  Disposition  of  tho  community  property  on  divorce 
or  death.  —  How  the  property  shall  be  disposed  of,  on 
dissolution  of  the  marriage  by  divorce  or  death,  is 
fully  provided  for  by  the  Codes.'  The  survivor  can 
generally  settle  up  the  comniuniiy  witli  or  without 
statutory  authority,'^  and  with  or  without  going  into 
court.^  The  survivor's  own  interest  is  residuary  only  ; ' 
the  community  property  is  a  primary  fund  for  the  set- 
tlement of  the  community  debts  ;»  and  tlioui;h  the  sur- 
vivor or  the  heirs  of  the  deceased  can  assign  their 
respective  interests,^  this  cannot  be  done  by  metes  and 
bounds,'  as  dissolution  of  tlie  marriage  turns  the  com- 
munity into  a  tenancy  in  common.^  Either  party  may 
by  will  dispose  of  sucli  part  of  the  community  as 
would  go  to  lais  or  her  representatives,*  but  neitlier  can 
by  will  alt'ect  the  interest  of  the  other.'"  On  divorce  the 
property  is  divided;"  a  mere  cause  for  divorce  does 
not  forfeit  the  riglits  of  either  party ;  '^  and  after  di- 
vorce tlie  husband  has  no  powers  over  tlie  wife's 
interest.'^ 

1  Ante,  I  313.  Soe  Dolanr,  Mvr.  Prob.  9  ;  Broad  j'.  IMurray,  44  Cal. 
22S,  226  ;  Broad,  40  Cul.  433,  4:i6 ;  Burton  r.  Lies,  21  Cal.  87,  ill  ;  Beard  v. 
Knox,  5  Cal.  252, 2.')6 ;  Tompkins,  12  Cal.  114, 124 ;  Thoussard  v.  Bernard, 
7  l.a.  216  ;  Plaiichct,  2:t  La.  An.  520,  525  ;  Dickson,  33  La.  An.  1370  ;  For- 
stall,  2H  La.  An.  1117  ;  Frosclair,  34  La.  An.  326;  Thompson  )'.  Craggr,  24 
Tex.  604  ;  Brackett  v.  Devine,25  Tex.  Wfi  ;  Good  v.  C'ombs,  28  Tex. 
34,  .50,  51  ;  Bucket  v.  Johnson,  40  Tex.  550  ;  Burleson,  28  Tex.  418  ; 
Maxwell  v.  Morgan,  20  Tex.  204  ;  Brown  v.  Prigden,  .56  Tex.  124  ; 
Caruth  v.  Grigsbv,  .57  Tex.  25!),  26.".;  Bell  r.  Swartz,  .56  Tex.  353;  Wat- 
kins  V.  Hall,  57  Te.x.  1,  2;  Busbv  v.  Davis,  57  Tex.  323,  328,  Ore  v. 
O'Brien,  .55  Tex.  141,  IfiD  ;  Mitchell  r.  Di'witt,  20  Tex.  2!)!);  Tucker  v. 
Brackett,  28  Tex.  336,  :i  is  ;  Wlieel(«r  ?'.  .sch  iilt"-,  30  Tex.  407;  Wall  v. 
Clerk,  1  )  Tex.  325  ;  Williiinson,  20  Tex.  211  ;  Jlonroe  v.  Leigh,  15  Tex. 
519,  520  ;  Duncan  v.  Kowle,  16  Tex.  501  :  Prunnin  v.  Barton.  18  Tex.  222, 
227. 

2  See  Woodley  v.  Adams,  55  Tex.  526,  531 ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ??  441, 
467. 

3  ^Nlonro"  v.  Leigh,  15  Tex.  510,  520  ;  Ore  v.  O'Brien,  .55  Tex.  149, 160. 
But  See  Busby  v.  Davis,  57  Tex.  323,  328. 

4  Dickson,  .33  La.  An.  1370;  Durham  v.  Williams,  32  La.  An.  162; 
Burleson,  28  Tex.  418  ;  Bell  v.  Swurtz,  56  Tex.  351 ;  ante,  I  317. 


491  COMMUNITY    PROPERTY.  §  319 

6    Christmas  v.  Smith,  10  Tex.  123,  129. 

6  Caruth  v.  Grigsby,  57  Tox.  259  265 ;  Good  v.  Combs,  23  Tex.  34,  49. 

7  Good  V.  Combs,  28  Tex.  M,  ol. 

8  See  Broad  v.  Murray,  44  Cal.  228,  229. 

9  Brown  u.  PrigJen,  56  Tex.  124  ;  Cal.  Civ.  Code,  §  1401. 
10    Greinor,  5.8  Cal.  115,  119;  Beard   v.  Knox,  5  Cal.  252,  256;   Bu- 
chanan, 8  Cal.  507,  510  ;  De  Godey.  i'J  Cal.  157,  IM  ;  Brown  v.  Prigdeu, 
66  Tex.  124. 

n    De  Godey,  39  Cal.  157,  164  ;  Rice,  21  Tex.  58,  63  ;  ante,  I  313 ;  Stew- 
art M.  &  D.  J  396.  !  jr/^ 
12    Routh,  57  Tex.  589,537.                   .         ^.            o   C]  / /fO  f"^' f'^^^^\    1  U 


13    De  Godey,  39  Cal.  157, 164, 


^^t'<>'m'ltM 


\  319.  Conflict  of  laws  as  to  community  property.  —  The 
conflict  of  laws,  generally,  has  already  been  discussed.' 
The  community  system  of  California  aijplies  to  all  per- 
sonal property,  wherever  situate,  of  those  who  arc  dom- 
iciled in  California ;  ^  but  only  to  such  lands  as  are  situate 
in  California,^  not,  for  example,  to  lands  in  New  Jersey  ;  * 
it  applies  also  to  all  personalty  acquired  by  persons 
after  forming  the  intention  of  moving  with  it  into  Cali- 
fornia.* A  statute  cannot  be  so  applied  as  to  make  the 
earnings  of  existing  sejDarate  propertj^  common  prop- 
erty,^ or  as  to  turn  communitj^  property  into  some 
other  kind  of  property.' 

1  Ante,  l\  19-37. 

2  Pratt  V.  Douglass,  .35  N.  J.  Eq.  516,  533 ;  wxte,  i  31, 

3  Hoyt  V.  Ilammerlin,  14  How.  357  ;  ante,  I  3.3. 

4  Pratt  V.  Douglass,  35  N.  J.  Eq.  516,  .533. 

5  Edriiigto.i  v.  Mayfleld,  5  Tex.  363,  368  ;  Claiborne  ti.  Tanner.  18 
Tex.  69,  77  ;  ante,  i  29. 

6  George  v.  Ransom,  U  Cal.  322,  323 ;  ante,  H  21,  22. 

7  Portis  V.  Parker,  22  Tex.  707  ;  ante,  U  21,  22. 


§  320  HOMESTEAD   PROPERTY.  492 

CHAPTER  XVIII. 

HOMESTEAD  PROPERTY. 

§  320.  Purpose  and  policy  of  homestead  and  exemption  laws. 

i  321.  Construction  of  homestead  laws. 

i  .322.  The  party  entitled  to  a  homestead. 

i  323.  The  homestead  defined. 

J  324.  In  what  estates  the  homestead  may  exist. 

i  325.  How  the  homestead  is  obtained. 

i  326.  How  the  homestead  may  be  lost. 

{  327.  Nature  of  the  homestead  estate,  and  incidents. 

{  328.  Eights  of  husband  in  and  over  the  homestead. 

{  32!).  Rights  of  wife  in  and  over  the  homestead. 

?  3.30.  Liabilities  of  the  homestead  to  claims  of  creditors. 

^  320.  Forposo  and  policy  of  homestead  and  exemption 
laws.  —  In  many  States  statute-s  have  been  pa.<.sed  for 
tlie  purpose  of  securiufj  to  each  head  of  a  family  a 
dwelling  place  for  the  family  —  a  home  exempt  from  the 
claims  of  creditors ;  these  statutes  are  called  home- 
stead and  exemption  laws.i  The  policy  of  those  laws 
has  been  frequently  discussed  and  commended. ^  Thej^ 
are  based,  it  is  .said,  on  the  idea  that,  as  a  matter  of 
public  policy,  for  the  promotion  of  the  property  of  the 
State,  and  to  render  independent  and  above  Avant  each 
citizen  of  the  government,  it  is  proper  that  he  should 
have  a  home  —  a  homestead  —  where  his  family  may  be 
sheltered  and  live  beyond  the  reach  of  financial  mis- 
fortune and  the  deinands  of  creditors.^  They  secure  a 
beneficent  provision  for  the  jjrotection  and  maintenance 
of  the  wife  and  children  against  the  neglect  and  im- 
providence of  the  father  and  husband.*  Their  obvious 
intent  is  to  secure  to  every  hou.se-holder  or  head  of  a 
family  a  home,  a  place  of  residence,  which  he  maj'  im- 
prove and  make  comfortable,  and  where  the  family 
may  be  sheltered  and  live  beyond  the  reach  of  those 


493  HOMESTEAD   TROPERTY.  ^  321 

financial  misfortunes  which  even  the  most  prudent 
and  sagacious  cannot  always  avoid.^  In  these  estates 
husband  and  wife,  as  the  source  of  the  family,  are  par- 
ticularly concerned. 

1  Smj'th  Homestead  and  Exemp.  ;  Thompson  Homestead  and 
Exemp.  ;  h)  Am.  Law  Reg.  1,  137  ;  1  Wash.  Real  Prop.  M2,  el  scq.;  37 
N.  J   Eq.  3t»,  40,  notes. 

2  See  Wassell  v.  Tunnah,  25  Ark.  103  ;  Cook  v.  McChristlan.4  Cat. 
26;  Charless  r.  Lamberson,  1  Iowa,  43!l ;  Campbell  i\  Adair,  4.5  Mi.s.s. 
1H2  ;  Garrett  v.  Cheshire,  6»  X.  C.  405  ;  li;  \m.  Kep.  647  ;  Franklin  i\ 
Coffee,  18  Tex.  415 ;  Smyth  Ilomest.  eh.  1  ;  Thompson  Homest.  ch.  1. 

3  Charless  v.  Lamberson,  1  Iowa,  439,  441. 

4  Cook  t).  McChristian,  4  Cal.  26. 

5  Wassell  v.  Tunnah.  25  Ark.  103. 

§  321.  Construction  of  homestead  laws.  —  At  common 
law  a  creditor  could  not  seize  his  debtor's  lands  in  exe- 
cution, and  could  proceed  only  against  his  rents  and 
profits,  goods  and  chattels,'  but  the  liability  to  be 
seized  was  gradually  extended  by  statute  until  all 
lands  were  subjected  to  execution  for  debts ;  ^  then  fol- 
lowed a  movement  in  the  other  direction,  towards 
exemi^ting  a  part  of  the  lands,  under  certain  circum- 
stances, from  this  liability,  tlie  policy  of  wliicli  has 
already  been  discussed.^  Therefore,  although  this  has 
been  ignored  by  some  courts,^  homestead  laws  are  not 
in  derogation  of  the  common  law,  and  therefore  to  be 
strictly  construed,"  but  are  remedial  acts,  beneficial  in 
their  operation  and  wise  in  their  policy,  which  should 
be  liberally  construed;^  and  the  same  rule  of  liberal 
interpretation  is  commonly  applied  to  laws  exeinpting 
chattels,'  though  such  laws  are  in  derogation  of  the 
common  law,  and  therefore,  under  the  rule,  to  be  con- 
strued strictly,  as  they  are  in  some  cases.^  In  the  ab- 
.sence  of  express  provision,  sucli  statutes  are  construed 
to  act  prospectively,  to  apply  only  to  debts  existing  at 
the  time  of  their  passage  j^  and  whether  an  express 
provision  that  they  sliall  act  retrospectively  is  consti- 

H.  &  W  —42. 


g  321  HOMESTEAD  PROPERTY.  494 

tutional,  is  disputed ;  some  courts,  holding  that  such 
provisions  aflect  only  tlie  i-emedy  and  not  the  contract 
itself,  liave  declared  tliein  valid ; '"  others  deny  this, 
and  have  declared  that  they  impair  the  obligations  of 
contracts  and  are  therefore  void ; "  of  course  tliey  are 
void  under  constitutional  provisions  forbidding  retro- 
spective laws  eo  nomineJ'^  When  a  statute  is  jjassed 
which  does  not  apply  to  pre-existing  debts,  these  arc 
enforced  under  the  laws  existing  at  tlie  time  tliat  they 
were  contracted."  On  tne  other  hand,  the  legislature 
may  remove  or  diminish  the  exemption,'*  whicli  is  a 
matter  of  grace,  a  privilege,  and  not  a  vested  right,''' 
tliougli  tliere  are  cases  whicli  seem  to  deny  this.'^  A 
mere  change  in  the  form  of  the  law,  as  by  codification, 
has  no  ettect."  These  laws  are  construed  to  have  no 
extra  territorial  operation, "^  and  are  generally  adminis- 
tered by  tlie  United  States  courts."  Whether  the  ex- 
emption maj'  be  waived  is  disputed.^ 

1  2  lUackst.  Com.  418  ;  Vogler,  S  X.  B.  R.  132  ;  Krueger  v.  Pierce,  37 
Wis.  '2(1.);  'fiiompsoii  lloinest.  i  2. 

2  See  Green  v.  Maries,  25  111.  2Xi ;  Thompson  Homest.  J  3. 

3  Ante,  i  320. 

4  See  (iuillory  v.  DevUle,  21  La.  An.  686  ;  Briant  v.  Lyons,  29  La. 
An.  65;  Olson  f.  Nelson,  3  Minn.  53;  Ward  r.  Huhn,  IR  Minn.  161; 
Allen  )'.  Coolc,  26  B.irb.  376  ;  Uaraty  i'.  J)u  Rose,  5  .S.  C  500. 

5  According  to  rule  stated,  ante,  i  16, 

6  Moss  V.  Warner,  10  C'al.  296  ;  Montague  r.  Richardson,  24  Conn. 
333  ;  Heard  v.  Downer,  47  Ga.  631 ;  Itoff  ?'.  Johnson.  40  Ga.  555  ;  Deere 
r.  Cliapnian,  25  111.  610,  612  ;  Beran  v.  Ilayden,  13  Iowa,  122;  Camp- 
bell i:  .\dair,  45  Miss.  178;  Bu.xton  t'.  Dearborn,  46  N.  H.  44  ;  Peverly 
V.  Savl.s,  10  X.  II.  3.:S  ;  Robinson  v.  Wil'V,  15  N.  Y.  4:t4  ;  True  v. 
Morrill,  2S  Vt.  674  ;  Mills  v.  Grant,  36  Vt.  271  ;  Howe  ?■.  Adams,  28  Vt. 
541 ;  Kuntz  v,  Kinney,  33  Wis.  510  ;  Connaughton  i'.  Sands, 32  Wis.  387. 

7  Patten  t'  Smith,  4  Conn.  4.50  ;  10  Am.  Dee.  166  ;  Good  i-.  Fogg,  61 
111.  4.50  ;  14  .\m.  Rep.  71  ;  Richardson  ;•.  Buswell,  10  Met.  .506  ;  13  Am. 
Dec.  4.5;> ;  Wilco.x  ti  Ilawlev,  31  X.  Y.  648  ;  freeman  i'.  Carpenter,  10 
Vt.  434  ;  33  Am.  Dec.  210  ;  sni>ra,  n.  6. 

8  Temple  v.  Scott,  3  Minn.  421  ;  Rue  v.  Alter,  5  Denlo,  119. 

n  Whedon  v.  Gorham,  ;08  C^onn.  412;  .Smith  v.  Marc,  26  III.  150; 
Ely  I'  Kiistwood.  26  111.  Iii7  ;  Taylor,  10  La.  An.  50.) ;  Roupe  v.  Carra- 
dine,  20  La.  An.  244  ;  Tillulson  <•  .Millard.  7  Miim.  513;  JIcKeethan  ii. 
Terry.  64  X.  C.  25  ;  .sjmonds  r.  Powers,  28  Vt.  3.54  ;  Perri?i  ■>'.  Sargeant, 
33  Vt.  SI  ;  Seamans  ;■  C  arter.  15  Wis.  348  ;  Phelan,  16  Wis.  76  ;  Doppv. 
Abbee,  17  Wis,  590 ;  ante,  J  2a 


495  HOMESTEAD  PROPERTY.  §  322 

10  See  Bronson  v.  Kinzie,  1  ITow.  315;  Planter's  r>.  Sharp.  6  TIow. 
318;  SiK'idtT  V.  Heidelbargor,  -15  Ala.  126,  l.;4  ;  Cook  v.  McChristUn, 
4  Cal.  2:i ;  Hardeman  v.  Downer,  39  Ga.  425 ;  PuUiam  v.  Sewell,  40 
Ga.  T-i ;  Guun  v.  Barry,  44  Ga.  35:5 ;  Cusic  v.  Uouslas,  3  Kan.  123  ;  Koot 
V.  McGrew,  3  Kan.  215;  Robert  v.  Cow,  25  I.a.  An.  200;  Bisilow  v. 
Pritchard,  21  Pick.  174  ;  RockweU  v.  Uubl)ell,  2  Doug.  (Hich.)  193  ; 
65  Am.  Dec.  216  ;  Grimes  t'.  Byrn,  2  Minn.  8.) ;  Hteplier.son  v.  Osborn, 
41  Miss.  II'J  ;  Morse  v.  Goold,  11  N.  Y.  281 ;  Hill  v.  Kesler,  63  N.  C.  407  ; 
Garrett  ?>.  Cheshire,  6J  N.  C.  3 16 ;  12  Am.  Rep.  6!7  ;  Hill,  42  Pa.  St.  133; 
Baldy,  40  Pa.  St.  32 -i ;  Kennedy,  2  S.  O.  216 ;  Baylor  v.  San  Antonio,  S3 
Tex.  448  ;  ante,  U  21,  22. 

11  Gunn  V.  Barry,  15  Wall.  610,  reversing  44  Ga.  353  ;  Chambliss  v. 
Jordan,  50  Ga.  81 ;  Wlioeljr  v.  Redding,  55  Gi.  87  ;  Bush  v.  Lester,  55 
Ga.  57:t:  Clarke  v.  Trowiek,  56  Gx  35 1 ;  Hannahs  v.  Felt,  15  Iowa,  111  ; 
Deregre  v.  Hann,  14  Iowa,  2:o  ;  ]\Iilne  v.  Schmidt,  12  La.  An.  53!; 
Lesley  v.  Phipps,  49  Miss.  7.;0 ;  Pennington  i'.  Se.al,  49  Miss,  52^; 
Harvey  v.  Wickham,  23  Mo.  116 ;  Ladd  v.  Dudley,  45  N.  H.  61 ;  Gar- 
rett V.  Cheshire,  69  N.  C.  396;  12  Am.  Rep.  647  ;  Edwards  v.  Kearsey, 
74  N.  C.  241 ;  Cochran  v.  Darcy,5  S.  C.  i:5;  Hewett,  5  S.  C.  40);  De  1 1 
Howe  V.  Harper,  5  S.  C.  470;  The  Homestead  Cases,  22  Gratt.  263; 
Russell  V.  Randolph,  26  Gratt.  705  ;  ante,  J  J  21,  22, 

12  Cunningham  V.  Grey,20Mo.  172  ;  Talleyr.  Thompson, 20 Mo, 277; 
ante,  i  21. 

13  See  Burnside  v.  Terry,  45  Ga.  621 ;  51  Ga.  186 ;  Chambliss  v.  Jor- 
dan, 50  Ga.  81 ;  Grant  v.  Cosby,  51  Ga.  430  ;  Wofford  v.  G.aines,  53  G.a. 
4S5;  Clark  v.  Trawick,  56  Ga.  359;  Lesley  v.  Phipps,  49  Miss.  790  ; 
Pennington  v.  Seal,  49  Miss.  518, 

14  Sparger  v.  Cumpton,  54  Ga.  355;  Harris  v.  Glenn,  56  Ga.  94; 
Allen  ?'.  Harley,  3  S.  C.  412;  Bull  v.  Conroe,  13  Wis,  2J3;  Parker  v. 
King,  Ifi  Wis.  223. 

15  Sparger  v.  Cumpton,  54  Ga,  3.55,  359, 

16  See  Finlevii.  Dietrick,  12  Iowa,  516;  Coleman  v,  Ballandi,  22 
Minn.  147  ;  Martin  v.  Hughes,  67  N.  C.  236. 

17  Bridgman  v.  Wilcut,  4  Greene,  563. 

IS  See  Bovkin  v.  Edwards,  21  Ala.  261 ;  Newell  v.  Hayden,  8  Iowa, 
140  :  Helfenstine  v.  Cave,  3  Iowa,  2^7 ;  Baltimore  v.  May,  25  Ohio  St, 
347 ;  Morgan  v.  Neville,  74  Pa.  St.  52.  Contra,  Pierce  v.  Chicaso,  36 
Wis,  3S8. 

19    Discussed  Thonapson  Homest,  J?  24-29. 

23    See  Thompson  Homest.  U  440-450  ;  post,  i  327, 

I  £22,  The  partj  entitled  to  homostead  oxomption. — 
Generally,  to  be  entitled  to  the  benelit  of  the  homestead 
erconiiDtion  law,  a  party  must  have  a  family,  and  a. 
home  wliich  it  occupies  in  the  State.^  A  husband  who 
has  a  wife,  has  a  family  ;  ^  and  in  some  States  the  wife, 
although  not  the  head  of  the  family,  may  have  a  homo- 
stead  .set  off  ;3  but  not  if  her  husband  is  in  another 
S!;ate  and  she  has  no  children,*  and  not  out  of  the  lius- 
band's  iiroperty  without  his  consent,  express  or  im- 


g  322  HOMESTEAD   PrvOPEKTY.  40G 

plied.5  The  claimant  must  have  a  home  in  which  the 
family  reside,^  and,  though  he  mav  be  temporarily 
absent  -wilhout  losing  his  rights,^  a  permanent  removal 
dcstroj's  the  homestead. ^  So  he  must  have  a  family  to 
reside  in  the  home,  and  when,  by  death  ^  or  divorce,^" 
or  for  other  reasons,  the  family  is  permanently  broken 
up,  t lie  homestead  is  gone;"  but  the  mere  abandon- 
ment of  his  family  by  a  husband,'^  or  the  abandon- 
ment of  the  husband  by  the  Avife,'^  or  even  divorce, 
will  not  destroy  the  homestead  right,  as  long  as  there 
remains  a  part  of  the  family  to  occupy  the  home."  It 
is  sutficient  if  the  claimant  be  a  resident, ^^  he  need  not 
bo  a  native,'^  or  a  jjermanent  inhabitant."  A  Meth- 
odist itinerant  preacher  was  allowed  to  have  a  home- 
stead.i* 

1  Thompson  Homest.  U  40-9S ;  Smyth  Homest. 

2  Kitchen  t'.  Eurswin,  21  111.  40,  45. 

3  Ga.  Code  l**"^,  i  20:::;  Bowen,  51  Ga.  182;  Partee  v.  Stewart,  5) 
Miss.  717,  720  ;  Holthaus  i'.  Hornbostle,  60  ilo.  43.1. 

4  Kci.Ter  v.  Barnej',  31  Ala.  106. 

5  Boweu.  50  Ga.  132 ;  Kichards  v.  Greene,  73  111.  W. 

6  Gunn  v.  Gudehaus,  15  Hon.  B.  45:  ;  post,  ?  S23. 

7  Carrington  i'.  Herrin,  4  Bush,  fi:i ;  Woodward  v.  Murray,  13 
Johns.  400  ;  UrilRn  v.  Sutherland,  14  Barb.  45S  ;  2>ost,  i  "-Cy. 

8  FylTe  v.  Beers,  13  Iowa,  7. 

9  See  Burns  v.  Jones,  37  Tox.  .50 ;  Petty  v.  Barrett,  37  Tex.  84. 

10  See  Cooper,  24  Ohio  St.  4SD  ;  Richey  v.  Hare,  41  Tex.  3oG. 

11  See  Redfern,  S3  111.  509  ;  Bvers  21  Iowa,  263  ;  Woods  v.  Pavis,  34 
Iowa,  2G4  ;  Dovle  v.  Coburn,  6  A"llen,  73  ;  feiUowav  v.  Brown,  r:  Allen, 
31;  Meader  r.'Plaep,  4S  >\  H.  307;  Atkinson,  40  X.  H.  249;  37  N.  11. 
4^6  ;  Cooper,  24  Ohio  St.  4SJ  ;  Beeves  v.  Petty,  44  Tex.  251. 

12  Moore  v.  Deming,  29  111.  loO  ;  White  v.  Clark,  36  III.  285. 

13  Dovle  V.  Coburn,  6  Allen,  71  ;  Meader  ?'.  Place,  43  N.  H.  30S  ; 
At'.ciiisoii,  37  J*'.  H.  24:1 ;  37  X.  11.  4:;5.  In  Texas,  by  abandonment  she 
forfieits  herri^ht:  Trawick  r.  Harris,  8  Tex.  312;  Xewland  v.  Hol- 
land, 45  Te.x.  5o8. 

14  See  Vanzant.  23  111.  536,  M2  ;  Bonnell  v.  Smith,  53  HI.  375,  .\S3 ; 
Redfr>rn,  33  111.  509;  Byers,  21  Iowa,  2G8;  Doyle  v.  Coburn  6  Allen, 
71 ;  Newland  v.  Holland,  45  Te.x.  538. 

15  Alston  V.  Ulman,  39  Tex.  1.57. 

16  McKenzie  !'.  Murphy,  24  Ark.  155. 

17  Dawley  v.  Algers,  23  Cal.  103. 

18  Dearing  v.  Thomas,  25  Ga.  223.  ; 


497  HOMESTEAD  PROPERTY.  ?  323 

g  323.  Tlxo  homoctoid  dofined. — The  liomesteacl  con- 
sists of  the  dwelling-house  in  which  the  claimant  re- 
sides and  the  land  on  which  it  is  situate,^  selected 
according  to  law.''  It  is  the  home  place,  the  place 
where  the  home  is,  be  it  a  house,  cabin,  or  tcnt;^  the 
house  and  the  adjoining  land  where  the  head  of  the 
family  dwells,  the  home  farm  ;^  the  place  wliere  a  man 
surrounds  himself  with  the  insignia  of  home,  and  en- 
joys its  immunities  and  privacies.'  It  necessarily  in- 
cludes the  idea  of  residence.^  Great  difficulties  are 
met  in  determining  how  far  a  dwelling  used  for  other 
purposes,  or  a  place  of  business  used  as  a  dwelling,  is 
a  homestead;^  but  it  is  essential  that  the  premises  be 
actually  used,  or  manifestly  intended  to  be  used,  as 
part  of  the  home  of  the  family .^  In  California  it  is 
said  tliat  tlie  only  tests  are  use  and  value,^  for  the  ex- 
tent of  the  homestead  is  generally  limited  by  statute.^" 
The  principles  as  applied  to  liomesteads  in  the  city,  or 
urban  homesteads,  and  to  liomesteads  in  the  country, 
or  rural  homesteads,  bring  somewhat  different  results," 
a  discussion  of  which  is  not  within  the  scope  of  this 
volume. 

1  See  Greeley  v.  Scott,  2  Woofls,  657;  Tumlinson  v.  Swi;iTio>  ,  22 
Ark.  400  ;  Norris  v.  Khld,  2S  Ark.  4S5  ;  Cook  v.  McChristian,  4  (^al.  2:! ; 
Taylor  v.  Hargous,  4  C:il.  2G3  ;  Gregg  v.  Bostwick,  33  Cal.  220,  225,  227 ; 
Dolaney,  37  Cal.  180;  Tourville  v.  Pierson,  39  III.  446;  Kitchcll  r. 
Biirg\vfn,21  111.40;  Brown  r.  Martin,  4  Bush,  47  ;  Dvson  ii.  Slieloy,  U 
Mich,  .527  ;  Tillotson  v.  Millarrl,  7  Minn.  513  ;  Hoitt  v.  Webb,  .35  N.  H. 
15S,  ]6fi  ;  Barnev  i'.  Leerts,  51  N.  H.  265;  Clark  v.  Shannon,  1  Nev.  565; 
Wi'tz  t\  Bearrl,"l2  Ohio  .St.  431  ;  Hancock  v.  Morgan,  17  Tox.  .W*;  I1:cmi 
r.  Olenick,  42  Tex.  lOS  ;  Mills  v.  Grant,  .36  Vt.  261 ;  Morgan  r.  S^oarns, 
41  Vu  3\)i  ;  Phelps  v.  Uoouey,  'J  W'is.  70  ;  Bunker  v.  Locke,  15  W'is.  G35, 
63S. 

2  Discussed  posl,  ?  225. 

3  Franklin  v.  Coffee,  18  Tex.  413. 

4  Hoitt  !'.  Webb,  33  X.  H.  1.5S,  183  ;  Bunker  v.  Locke,  15  Wis.  635,  &38. 

5  Philleo  V.  Smally,  23  Tex.  408,  502. 

6  Stanley  v.  Greenwood,  24  Tex.  224. 

7  Compare  Hoitt  v.  Webb,  .33  N.  H.  15S,  166,  with  Houston  v. 
Winter,  44  Tex.  Oil.  See  Stevens  v.  Hollingsworth,  74  Til.  2(i3  ;  I'cr- 
ki  IS  V.  Quigley,  62  Mo.  503;  Buxton  v.  Dearborn,  43  >'.  H.  4"  ;  sinra, 
n.  1. 


§  324  HOMESTEAD   PROPERTY.  498 

8  Grasholtz  r.  Xewman,  21  Wall.  3SC  ;  Houston  i'.  Winter,  44  Tex. 
611. 

9  Gregg  v.  Bostwick,  33  Cal.  220,  226. 

10  See  Donald  v.  Ba4?er,  23  Cal.  393;  Blue,  38  III.  9;  Clark  t'. 
Shannon,  1  Xev.  5Gi  ;  Iken  v.  Olenlck,  42  Tex.  Ii8, 199. 

11  Discussed  fully,  Thompson  Homst.  ?J  125-161 ;  Smyth  Homest. 

§  324.  In  what  estates  homestead  may  exist. — A  home- 
stead niaj'  exist  in.  property  held  by  a  wrongful  title,^ 
except  as  against  the  true  owner,^  in  equitable  estates,^ 
so  that  the  husband  can  no  more  defeat  the  ■\\ife's 
right  by  conveying  equitable  property  Avithout  her 
joinder  than  he  could  by  so  conveying  legal  property,* 
in  life  estates,^  but  it  ceases  with  life  ;  ^  in  leaseholds  ;  ^ 
in  common  and  joint  estates  in  some  States,^  in  others 
not ;  ^  not  in  partnership  estates.'"  A  homestead  may 
be  claimed  out  of  the  \\ife's  separate  property,^'  or  out 
of  property  owned  jointly  by  husband  and  wife.'^ 
"Whether  the  property  on  which  the  family  live  be- 
longs to  either  or  to  all  so  living  together,  it  equally 
comes  within  the  purview  of  the  constitutional  guar- 
anty, and  is  in  fact  a  homestead,  and  cannot  be  subjected 
to  forced  sale."  "  But  a  single  family  cannot  hold  more 
than  one  homestead,'*  and  therefore  both  husband  and 
■wife  cannot  each  have  a  homestead.'^  The  homestead 
laws  were  intended  to  embrace  all  property  which 
could  be  seized  in  execution.'® 

1  Spencer  v.  Geissman,  37  Cal.  99  ;  Garaty  v.  Du  Bose,  5  S.  C.  4;.'!. 

2  Mann  v.  Kogers,  35  CaL  316 ;  McClurken,  46  111.  327. 

3  Bartholemew  v.  West,  2  Dill.  293;  Allen  v.  Hawley.  66  III.  164  ; 
Stinsun  v.  Richardson,  44  Iowa,  373;  Moore  v.  Reaves.  15  Kan.  150; 
Orr  r.  Shraft,  22  Mich.  260;  Wilder  v.  Hiughey,  21  Minn.  101,  107; 
Ch'^atani  r.  Jones,  6i  N.  C.  153  ;  Morgan  v.  Stearns,  41  Vt.  .3r»8 :  Doane, 
46  Vt.  4>5;  McCabe  i'.  Mazzuchelli,  13  Wis.  47^.  Contra,  Garaty  v. 
Du  Bose,  5  S.  0.  493 ;  McManus  v.  Campbell,  37  Tex.  267. 

4  Allen  v.  Hawlev,  66  111.  164  ;  Moore  v.  Reaves,  15  Kan.  153 ;  Mc- 
Kee  V.  Wilcox,  1 1  Mich.  35:* ;  Hartman  v.  Munch,  21  Minn.  107  ;  3Ic- 
Cabe  i:  Mazzuchelli,  13  Wis.  47S. 

5  Deere  r.  Chapman,  25  111.  610 ;  Potts  i'.  Davenport,  79  111.  4.56. 

6  Brown  v.  Keller,  32  IlL  151. 


199  HOMESTEAD   PROPERTY.  \  325 

7  Conklin  r.  Foster,  57  111  104  ;  Pelan  v.  De  Bevard,  1"  Iowa.  •>! : 
Johnson  v.  Richardson,  33  Miss.  4U2. 

8  Greenwood  )'.  JIaddox,  27  Ark.  660;  Hewitt  v.  Rankin.  41 
Iowa.  3'),  44  ;  Tarrant  v.  Swain,  15  Kan.  14C  ;  Horn  v.  Tuffts,  3)  N.  II. 
•J7S  ;  Williams  »■.  Wotliered,  37  Tex.  i;« ;  Smith  v.  Deschaumes,  37 
Tex.  42J  :  McClary  v.  Bixby,  36  Vt.  2.>4. 

9  Elias  V.  Verdugo,  27  Cal.  418 ;  Seaton  v.  Son,  3-2  Cal.  4S1 ;  Cameto 
%'.  Dupuy.  47  Cal.  7,»;  Ventress  v.  Collins,  28  La.  An.  7^3;  Bemis  r. 
Dri  ;coll,  101  Mass.  421  ;  .-Vmphlett  v.  Ilibbard,  20  Mich.  2;iS  ;  Ward  v. 
liuhn,  16  Minn.  159  ;  West  v.  Ward,  26  Wis.  580. 

10  Handlin,  3  Dill.  2;i0 ;  Kingslev,  39  Cal.  605 ;  Guptil  v.  McTee,  9 
Kan.  30,  35;  Pond  v.  Ki-.nball,  101  Mass.  105;  Anaphlett  v.  Hibbard,  29 
Mich.  2J8  ;  St^.te  v.  Sponccr,  61  Mo.  35.) ;  27  Am.  Rep.  244  ;  Rhodes  v. 
Williams,  12  Nov.  20,  2i ;  Gaylord  v.  Xmhoff,  26  Ohio  St.  317  ;  20  Am. 
R"p.  762  ;  Bonsell  v.  Conely,  44  Pa.  St.  447;  Russell  v.  Lenuon,  39  Wis. 
570. 

11  Tourville  u.  Pierson,  .39  111.  446,  453  ;  Orr  v.  Shraft,  22  Mich.  260, 
261.  See  Murraj'  v.  .Sells,  .53  Ga.257  ;  Crane  v.  Wagson'^r,  33  Ind.  83  ; 
Partee  v.  Stewart,  50  Miss.  717 ;  Dwinell  i'.  Edwards,  23  Ohio  .St.  603. 

12  Willis  V.  Matthews,  46  Tex.  478,  4S4. 

13  Wilson  V.  Cochran,  .31  Tex.  6sO. 

14  Gambette  v.  Brock,  41  Cal.  81 ;  Tourville  v.  Pierson,  39  111.  447; 
Franklin  v.  Coffee,  18  Tex.  413. 

15  Dwinell  v.  Edwards,  23  Ohio  St.  60.3. 

16  See  Deere  v.  Chapman,  25  111.  610,  612.  See  Bartholemew  v. 
West,  2  Dill.  2)3;  Conklin  v.  Foster,  57  111.  107;  Uiiiidal  v.  Elder,  12 
Kan.  2'Jl ;  Vosler  v.  Montgonierj',  54  Mo.  5S4  ;  Sears  v.  Hanks,  14 
Ohio  St.  SOL 

\  325.  How  a  homostoad  is  obtainod.— There  are  tliree 
ways  in  which  one  entitled  to  a  homestead  may  obtain 
this  estate  r^  (1)  By  public  record  notice  under  the  pro- 
visions of  statutes.-^  (2)  By  visible  occupancy  and  use.* 
(3)  B}'^  having  the  linmestead  sot  oft" in  judicial  jiroceed- 
ings.*  The  second  is  the  most  common  mode  of  ac- 
quiring a  homestead,  and  even  when  the  other  modes 
are  pursued,  it  is  neces.sary  that  the  pro  pert  j""  so  declared 
or  claimed  to  be  a  homestead  shall  be  actually  occupied 
and  used  as  the  family  home.* 

1  Discussed  Thompson  Homest.  \\  230-260 ;  Smyth  Homest. 

2  S"e  Statut-^s  of  .VKi..  Cal.,  Colo.,  Iowa,  Me.,  Mass.,  Minu.,  Mo., 
?^.  v.,  Va.,  and  Vt. ;  Tliiimpson  Homest.  J  231 ;  Calderwood  v.  Tevis, 
2.;  Cal.  .335  ;  Drake  v.  Root,  2  Colo.  685. 

3  Tourville  v.  Pierson.  39  111.  446  ;  Letchford  v.  Carv,  52  Miss.  791 ; 
Stone  v.  Darnell,  20  Tex.  11. 

4  Holden  )'.  Pi:iuey,  6  Cal.  234;  Thrasher  ?•.  Bettis,  .53  Ga.  407; 
Snioway  V.  Brown,  12  .Mien,  34  ;  Chambers  v.  Penland,  74  N.  C.  340. 


I  323  HOMKSTEAD   PROPERTY.  500 

5  Grog??».  Bostwick.  3'i  Cal.  220;  Presoott,  -lo  Cal.  5S  ;  Christy  v. 
Dj-er.  1-1  Iowa,  4:i8  ;  Page  v.  Evvbanks,  IS  Iowa,  -(*J  ;  Klston  ?•.  Robin- 
son, 23  Iowa.  20S  ;  Lee  v.  Miller,  II  Allen,  37  ;  Edwards  n.  Fry,  •>  Kan. 
417,  425;  Spalding  v.  Crane,  46  V^t.  2iJS  ;  Thompson  Homest.  ?J  240- 
260. 

I  326.  How  th.0  homestead  may  be  lost. — Ju.st  a.s  the 
most  common  way  of  acquiring  a  homestead  is  by 
actual  occupation  of  the  premises,'  so  the  naost  com- 
mon way  of  losing  the  homestead  is  l>y  ceasing  to 
occupy  tlie  same  —  by  abandonment.-  A  mere  tem- 
])orary  removal,^  or  unexecuted  intention  to  leave  the 
premises,''  is  not  an  abandonment ;  tliere  must  be 
aciual  cessation  of  occupation  witli  the  intent  of  no 
longer  treating  tlie  premises  as  the  home.'  Tlie  ques- 
ti(m  is  therefore  largely  one  of  intent,^  and  thJ.?  i.? 
proved  as  a  matter  of  fact,'^  by  the  declai-ations  of  tlie 
c-laimant,8  by  the  length  and  character  of  his  absence,^ 
and  conclusively,  by  tlie  fact  that  he  has  acquired  an- 
olher  homestead.'"  After  abandonment,  a  homestead 
i:i  the  same  pioperty  must  be  acquired  as  though  tlie 
lirst  homestead  had  never  existed,"  and  tlie  jiropci-ty, 
in  spite  of  tlie  acquisition  of  a  second  homestead  there- 
in, is  liable  for  all  debts  incuired  meanwhile.'^  The 
husband  as  head  of  liis  family  may  change  his  home  a.j 
often  as  ho  pleases,'^  and  therefore  abandon  the  home- 
stead without  his  wife's  consent ;"  but  his  mere  de.«er- 
tion  from  her  is  not  an  abandonment  of  the  homestead, 
if  she  continues  to  live  on  the  premises ;  '^  nor  does  her 
abandonment  of  the  homestead  affect  the  husband'.; 
rights,"^  or  even  her  own,'^  therein ;  still,  if  she  lives 
with  him,  and  then  separating  from  liim  returns,  the 
homestead  is  gone.'*  So  the  homestead  may  bo  lost  l^y 
a  joint  conversance  of  the  husband  and  wifo,'^  and  in 
some  cases  by  legal  isroceedings  to  which  the  hu&baiid 
and  wife  are  both  ijarties.^" 

1     Ante,  I  .■!2.5. 


501  iio:mkstead  property.  ?  327 

2  Austin  V.  Stanley,  -46  N.  II.  ol ;  Bell  v.  Schwarz,  37  Tex.  572. 
Discussed  Thompson  lloniest.  U  26;>-280. 

3  Bavis  i\  Kelly,  14  Iowa,  Sio ;  Onnan,  20  Iowa,  .301. 

4  Dawley  v.  Ayres,  23  Cal.  103  ;  Cross  v.  Everts,  28  Tex.  523. 

5  Fylfe  v.  Beers,  18  Iowa,  7 ;  Mcllillan  v.  Warner,  38  Tex.  410. 

6  Cabf^en  v.  Mullicran,  "7  III.  2:10.  See  Tavlor  r.  Ilarcrous,  10  Cal. 
230  ;  Guio  I,  n  Cal.  .50ii ;  Ilnrp.T  ?'.  Forbes,  15  ('al.  2li2  ;  I  vi-s  v.  Mills,  37 
111.  73;  Kitchen  r.  Diirs\vi!i,2L  111.40;  Delaney  v.  Pyiichon,  0  Allen, 
510  ;  Lazell,8  Allen,  o7.'i ;  Campbell  v.  Adair,  45  Miss.  171;  Jordan  r. 
Oodman,  1')  Tox.  273  ;  .Shepherd  v.  Cassiday,  20  Tex.  24  ;  Herrick  v. 
Graves,  10  Wis.  157. 

7  Brennan  r.  "Wallace,  25  Cal.  103  ;  Fyffe  r.  Beers,  IS  Iowa,  7 ; 
Shepherd  v.  Cassiday,  20  Tex.  24,  26. 

8  Wright  r.  Dunning,  40  111.  271  ;  Anderson  v.  Kent,  14  Kan.  207; 
McMillan  !>.  Warner,  3S  Tex.  410  ;  Holliman  v.  Smith,  "d  Tox.  357. 
Declarations  of  husband  admissible  against  wife:  Brennan  v.  Wal- 
lace, 25  Cal.  115. 

9  Supra,  n.  3. 

10  Carr  v.  Rising,  62  111.  14  ;  FyfTe  v.  Beers,  18  Iowa,  7  ;  Drury  v. 
Batchelder,  11  Gray,  214  ;  Holliman  v.  Smith,  33  Tex.  302  ;  Jarvais  v. 
Moe,  38  Wis.  440. 

11  Phillips  V.  City,  39  111.  83  ;  Davis  v.  Kelly,  14 Iowa,  525  ;  Carter  v, 
Goodman,  11  Bush,  223  ;  Campbell  t\  Adair,  45  Miss.  170. 

12  Pitman  v.  Moore,  43  III.  103. 

13  Discussed  ante,  I  CO. 

14  Guiod,  14  Cal.  500 ;  Brown  r.  Coon,  36  111.  243  ;  Pitman  v.  Moore, 
43  111.  174  ;  Bursou  v.  Fowler,  65  111.  146  ;  Hand  v.  Winn,  52  Miss.  7S8  ; 
Foss  V.  Strachn,  42  N.  H.  40 ;  Jordan  v.  Godman,  19  Tex.  273. 

15  Gambette  v.  Brock,  41  Cal.  625;  Benson  v.  Aitken,  17  Cal.  163  ; 
Dearing  r.  Thomas,  25  Ga.  223 ;  Moore  v.  Dunning,  2J  111.  135;  White 
V.  Clark,  36  111.  285. 

16  Doyle  v.  Coburn,  6  Allen,  71. 

17  Lies  V.  De  Diablar,  12  Cal.  327  ;  Meader  v.  Place,  43  K.  H.  307  ; 
•Welch  V.  nice,  31  Tex.  toS. 

18  Allison  1'.  Shilling,  27  Tex.  450,  454  ;  Phillips  v  City,  39  111.  83. 

19  Lies  V.  De  Diablar,  12  Cal.  327  ;  post,  ?  327. 

20  Marks  r.  Marsh,  9  Cal.  96 ;  Van  Reynegan  i>.  Revolt,  8  Cal.  75 ; 
C'as.sell  J'.  Ross,  33  111.  244  ;  Chase  v.  Abbott,  25  Iowa,  154  ;  Clark  v. 
Shannon,  1  a\cv.  503  ;  2}ost,  I  320. 

I  327.  H'aturo  and  incidonts  of  homestead  estate.  —  Pi-op- 
erty  which  is  hold  by  husband  and  wife  as  their  home- 
stead is  .subject  to  iseculiar  incidents.  Being  purely  a 
statutory  estate,'  it  can  be  created  and  destroyed  only 
in  modes  prescribed  by  statute  ;  ^  and  the  statutes  also 
provide  how  it  shall  be  held  in  case  of  the  dissolution 
of  the  marriage.3    Thus,  in  California,  it  was  held  that 


^  328  HOMKSTEAP   PROPKRTY.  502 

the  homesiead  was  a  kind  of  joint  estate  with  the  inci- 
dent of  survivorshii),*  and  was  therefore  not  assets  of 
the  Imsband's  estate.^  And  when  the  estate  is  assigned 
its  incident  of  exemption  from  debts  no  longer  con- 
tinue, this  is  a  personal  right  which  cannot  be  assigned. ^ 
In  Now  Ilampsliire  the  wife's  right  in  the  homestead 
during  coverture  is  analogous  to  dower,  and  merely 
inchoate." 

1  Ante,  I  S-1. 

2  See  Boyd  v.  Cudderback,  31  111.  160 ;  Connor  v.  McMurrav,  2 
Allen,  204;  Abbott  r.  Croniartie,  72  N.  C.  54S ;  21  Am.  Hep.  "-loT; 
Beavan  v.  Speed,  74  IS'.  C.  64S  ;  ante,  U  326,  327. 

3  Wixon,  35  Cal.  320  ;  Cotton  v.  Wood,  25  Iowa,  43. 

4  Buchanan,  8  Cal.  507,  50'J  ;  Tompkins,  12  Cal.  114,  125. 

5  See  also  O'Docherty  v.  McGloin,  25  Tex.  67. 

6  Bowman  7'.  Norton,  16  Cal.  213;  Hewitt  ?'.  Tenipleton,  4S  III.  .'!r)7  ; 
Bennett  v.  Culler,  44  N.  H.  6J  ;  Bowyer,  21  Pa.  St.  210. 

7  Gunnison  v.  Twitchell,  &<«  N.  H.  62 ;  Foss  v.  Stracher,  42  N.  H.  40. 

g  323.  Rights  of  husband  in  and  over  tho  homestead.  — 
The  husband,  by  virtue  of  his  right  to  determine  tlie 
residence  of  his  family,  may  locate  and  abandon  a 
homestead  without  the  wife's  consent. '  So,  unless  tho 
statute  provides  otherwise,  as  they  nearly  all  do,  he  can 
alienate  the  homestead  without  his  wife's  joinder.-'  But 
under  the  statutes  the  wife  must  join,^  and  her  sepa- 
rate acknowledgement  is  iu  some  States  necessaiy  ;* 
and  generally  the  deed  must  express  the  fact  that  the 
wife  joins  for  the  purpose  of  releasing  the  homestead.^ 
When  the  wife's  joinder  is  necessary,  the  deed  without 
it  is  void  not  only  as  to  her,*  but  as  to  her  husband,' 
and  the  alienee  can  have  no  rights  in  the  homestead 
unless  the  same  is  abandoned  to  him, ^  or  tlie  husband 
survives  his  wife.^  But  separate  deeds  by  husband  and 
wife  do  not  sufficiently  fill  the  requirement  of  joinder.'" 
A  conveyance  by  the  husband  to  his  wife  .md  children 
is  not  within  the  operation  of  these  statutes  limiting  his 


503  HOMESTEAD  PBOPERTY.  g  328 

powers  of  alienati(>n.'i  On  the  wife's  death  the  hus- 
band continues  the  head  of  the  family,  and  as  such,  if 
he  has  any  family,  he  can  hold  on  to  the  homestead.'- 
The  homestead  is  not  liable  for  the  husband's  debts,^^ 
this  is  the  essential  feature  of  this  estate.'*  But  as  hus- 
band he  has  full  power  to  manage  the  estate, *»  and  if 
he  owns  the  fee,  he  is  owner  of  the  homestead.'^  He 
cannot  deprive  his  wife  of  it  by  will." 

1  Gulod,  14  Cal.  506  ;  Burson  v.  Fowler,  65  III.  146  ;  Brown  v.  Coon, 
36  111.  24:i ;  Titmaii  v.  Moore,  43  111.  174  ;  Haiul  v.  Winn,  52  Miss.  7S8  ; 
Foss  V.  Stracher,  42  N.  H.  40  ;  Jordan  v.  Godman,  19  Tex.  'J73. 

2  See  Cross,  2  Dill.  320  ;  Dawson  v.  Hayden,  67  111.  52  ;  Chamber- 
lain V.  Lyell,  3  Mich.  448  ;  Rector  v.  Rotton,  3  Neb.  171 ;  Homestead 
r.  Enslow,  7  S.  C.  1!) ;  Kennedy  v.  Stacey,  57  Tenn.  223,  224  ;  Morrill  v. 
Hopkins,  36  Tex.  6S7  ;  Edmondsoa  v.  Blessing,  42  Tex.  5i»6. 

3  Poole  II.  Gerrard,  6  Cal.  71  ;  Dorsey  v.  McFarland,  7  Cal.  342; 
Revalk  v.  Kraemer,  8  Cal.  66  ;  Dunn  v.  Tozer,  10  Cal.  167  ;  Lies  i-.  De 
Diablar,  12  Cal.  327  ;  Best  v.  Allen,  30  111.  30  ;  Marshall  v.  Baun,  :35  111. 
106  ;  Vanzant,  23  III.  .536  ;  Yost  v.  Devault,  6  Iowa,  60;  Morris  v.  Sar- 
gent, 18  Iowa,  19  ;  Richards  v.  Chace,  2  Gray,  383;  Dye  t).  Mann,  10 
Mich.  291;  Lawyer?).  Slingerhand,  U  Minn.  447  ;  Williams  v.  Starr,  5 
Wis.  534  ;  Hart  v.  Honley,  19  Wis.  472. 

4  Cross  V.  Everts,  28  Tex.  532. 

5  Vanzant,  23  111.  536 ;  Thornton  v.  Boyden.  31  111.  200  ;  Redfern,  38 
111.  50!) ;  Connor  v.  McMurray,  2  Allen,  202  ;  IIokb  r.  Ilollister,  2  Tenn. 
Ch.  606.  But  see  Babcock  v.  Hoey,  11  Iowa,  375  ;  Wing  v.  Hayden,  10 
Bush,  280. 

6  See  Moore  v.  Dixon,  35  111.  208, 236  ;  Martin  v.  Dwelly ,  6  Wend.  9  ; 
21  Am.  Dec.  245. 

7  Barber  v.  Babel, 36  Cal.  11 ;  Sears  v.  Dixon,  33  Cal.  326 ;  I^arson  v. 
Rej'nolds,  13  Iowa,  579  ;  Alley  i'.  Bay,  9  Iowa,  509  ;  Ayres  v.  Probasco, 
14  Kan.  190;  Morris  ti.  Ward,  5  Kan.  239 ;  Doyle  ?).  Coburn,6  Allen,72  ; 
Richards  «'.  Chace,  2  Gray,  3S5  ;  Dye  v.  Mann,  10  Mich.  2;H  ;  Aniphlett 
11.  Hibbard,  2J  Mich.  29S  ;  Kennedy  v.  Stacev,  57  Tenn.  220  ;  Hoge 
V.  Hollister,  2  Tenn.  C  h.  003 ;  Rogers  v.  Renshaw,  ;J7  Tex.  625 ;  Wil- 
liams V.  Starr,  5  Wis.  634,  650  ;  Halt  v.  Houle,  19  Wis.  472. 

8  McDonald  v.  Crandall,  43  111.  231, 238 ;  Brown  v.  Coon,  36  III.  243  ; 
Hewitt )'.  Tenipleton,  4S  III.  367 ;  Vasey  v.  Trustees,  59  III.  188  ;  Stew- 
art V.  Mackey,  16  Tex.  56  ;  Jordan  v.  Godman,  19  Tex.  273. 

9  Gee  V.  Moore,  14  Cal.  472 ;  Benedict  v.  Webb,  57  Ga.  34S ;  Heard 
V.  Downer,  47  Ga.  629.  Contra,  Revalk  v.  Kraemer,  8  Cal.  66,  76  ;  Lar- 
son V.  Reynolds,  13  Iowa,  13  Iowa,  679. 

10  Dickinson  v.  McLane,  67  N.  H.  31. 

U  Riehl  V.  Bingerheimer,  28  Wis.  84. 

12  Revalk  v.  Kraemer,  8  Cal.  66. 

13  Green  v.  Marks,  25  111.  221  ;  post,  i  330. 

14  Charless  v.  Lamberson,  1  Iowa,  439,  441. 

15  Thompson  Homest.  i  42. 


^  329  HOMESTEAD   PROPERTY.  504 

16  Richards  )•.  Greene,  74  111.  rA. 

17  Meech,  37  Vt.  410  ;  Johnson  v.  Harrison,  -11  NVis.  asi. 

I  329.  Eights  of  wife  in  and  over  the  homestead.  —  Over 
a  homestead  out  of  her  husband's  proi^erty  a  wife  has 
during  coverture  no  active  rights,'  and  if  the  home- 
stead be  out  of  her  separate  i:)roperty,  she  lias  no 
greater  rights  thereover,  than  the  husband  has  when 
the  homestead  is  out  of  his  :^  she  cannot,  for  example, 
convej''  it  without  his  joinder.'  On  the  husband's 
death,  she  may  as  the  liead  of  the  family,  continue  to 
hold  a  homestead  in  her  own  property,*  or  take  a 
homestead  in  his,  by  survivorship  as  in  California, ^  bj"" 
descent  as  in  Vermont,^  or  to  hold  under  certain  con- 
ditions, as  in  most  of  the  States.'  In  Alabama,  Illi- 
nois, Massachusetts,  Missouri,  Tennessee,  Vermont, 
and  Wisconsin,  she  may  have  the  homestead  in  her 
husband's  pi'operty  and  dower  also,^  but  in  Georgia, 
Iowa,  and  Xortli  Carolina,  she  cannot  have  both.^  She 
may  redeem  the  hoinestead  from  tax  sale  after  dis- 
co verture,'"  or  perform  her  husband's  executory  con- 
tract of  purchase."  During  coverture  her  husband 
should  join  her  in  a  suit  respecting  tlie  homestead,'' 
and  she  may  sue  alone  in  equity  for  its  protection. '^  A 
purchase-money  mortgage  by  the  wife  alone  is  a  valid 
lien  on  the  homestead.'* 

1  See  Foss  v.  Stracher,  42  N.  H.  40  ;  nnte,  i  32!).  Though  she  may 
herself  claim  the  exemption  :  Cassell  v.  Ho.ss,  :i:!  111.  245  ;  Helff  nstein 
t'.  Cove,  S  Iowa,  2J.5  ;  Adams  r.  Beale,  19  Iowa,  67. 

2  .See  Partie  v.  Stewart,  50  Miss.  720  j  ante,  ?  322. 

3  Dollman  v.  Harris,  5  Kan.  599. 

4  See  Keyes  v.  Hill,  30  Vt.  759. 

5  Tavlor  v.  Hargons,  4  Cal.  273  ;  Revalk  v.  Kraemer,  8  Cal.  66,  7.'! ; 
Tomkins,  12  Cal.  114,  123. 

6  McClarv  r.  Bixhv,  36  Vt.  260  ;  Howe  v.  Adams,  28  Vt.  541 ;  Jew- 
ett  V.  Brock,  31  Vt.  (w  ;  Davis  v.  Andrews,  30  Vt.  678. 

7  Hunter,  3  La.  An.  257  ;  O'Docherty  i<.  McGloin,  25  Tex.  72. 

8  MeCuan  j-.  Turrentine,  48  Ala.  70  ;  Jordan  v.  Stickland,  42  Ala. 
315  ;  Chisholm,  41  Ala.  3:27  ;  Walsh  v.  Reis,  50  111.477  ;  Bursen  r.  (iood- 
speed,  60  111.  281 ;  Mercier  v.  Chace,  H  Allen,  194  ;  Monk  d»  -Cupeu,  5 


505  HOMESTEAD   Pr.OPERTY.  §  330 

Allen,  140  ;  Bates,  97  Mass.  392;  Grasr??,  5  Mo.  271 ;  Morrimaii  v.  La^^e- 
field,  4  Heisk.  222;  Chaplin  v.  Sawyer,  35  Vt.  2;)0  ;  Doaiie,  33  Vt.  iHJ ; 
Bresee  v.  Stiles,  22  Wis.  120. 

9  Singleton  v.  Huff,  49  Ga.  584  ;  Roff  v.  Johnson,  40  Ga.  555  ;  Rob- 
son  V.  Lindrum,  !7  Ga.  252;  Adams,  46  Ga.  630;  Meyer,  23  Iowa,  Soj  ; 
Butterfield  v.  Wicks,  44  Iowa,  310. 

10  Adams  v.  Beale,  10  Iowa,  61. 

11  McKee  v.  Wilco.x,  11  Mich.  3G1. 

12  Poole  V.  Gerrard,  6  Cal.  71  ;  Dunn  v.  Tozer,  10  Cal.  170. 

13  Conistocli,  27  Mich.  9S  ;  Kelley  v.  Whitmore,  41  Tex.  647.  Hut 
see  Gaiod.  14  Cal.  507.  Contra,  Mallon  v.  Gates,  26  L,a.  An.  610 ; 
Thorns,  45  Miss.  272. 

14  Andrews  v.  Alcorn,  13  Kan.  3>4. 

I  333.  Liabilities  of  homestaad  to  claims  of  creditors. — 
The  homestead  property  is  generally  exempt  from  lia- 
bility for  debtSji  but  there  are  certain  classes  of  debts 
which  are  privileged,  and  which  are  enumerated  by 
Thompson  as  follows  :  (1)  Debts  and  liens  subsisting 
prior  to  the  taking  effect  of  the  exemption  law,  (2) 
Debts  created  prior  to  the  acquisition  of  the  homestead. 
(3)  Liens  subsisting  prior  to  the  time  when  the  i:>rein- 
ises  became  impressed  with  the  homestead  charac- 
ter. (4)  Unpaid  purchase  money  —  vendor'.s  lien.  (.^) 
Debts  contracted  in  removing  encumbrances.  (6)  Liens 
for  the  creation,  improvement,  and  preservation  of  t!ie 
property — mechanics',  laborers',  furnishers',  landlords' 
liens.  (7)  Judgments  in  action  et  delicto.  (8)  Public 
debts.''  A  discussion  of  these  questions  does  not  be- 
long to  tlie  subject  of  this  volume. 

1  Green  v.  Marks,  25  111.  221;  Delavan  v.  Pratt,  10  Iowa,  420; 
Morgan  v.  Stearns,  41  Vt.  308. 

2  Thompson  Homest.  ch.  7. 


n.  cfe  W.-43. 


PART   IV. 


THE   STATUS   OF   MARRIED   WOMEN. 


Chap,  XIX. 

XX. 
XXI. 

XXII. 
XXIII. 

XXIV. 

XXV. 

XXVI, 

XXVII. 
XXVIII. 


The  Status  of  Married  Wo3ien,  Gen- 

p:RAiiLY,  ?^  331-339. 
Wills  of  Married  Women,  ??  340-331. 
Contracts  of  Married  Women,  ^^  355- 

393. 
Deeds  of  Married  Women,  ??  394-408. 
Estoppel  of  Married  Women,  gg  409- 

420. 
Torts  of  Married  Women,  l^  421-425. 
Crimes  of  Married  Women,  ?§  426,  427. 
Suits  of  Married  Women,  ^g  428-403. 
Married  Women  Traders,  ??  464-481. 
Married  Women  in  Representative 

Capacities,  g§  482-487. 


g  331  STATUS  Ol-"  5r..KRIi:D    WOMEX,  508 

CHAPTER  XIX. 

THK   STATUS   OF   MARRIED   WOMEX,  GENERALLY. 

?  331.  General  rule  at  common  law,  no  legal  existence. 

§  332.  Capacities  of  wife  abanJoned  by  husband. 

1  333.  Capacities  of  wife  divorced  a  mensa  et  thoro. 

2  334.  Capacities  of  wife  of  husband  civilly  dead. 
J  3.35.  Capacities  of  wife  of  husband  not  sui  juris. 

I  336.  Capacities  of  wife  acting  in  representative  position. 

I  3::'7.  Capacities  of  wife  in  equity. 

I  338.  Capacities  of  wife  under  statutes. 

I  339.  Effect  of  additional  disability  of  infancy,  etc. 

I  331.  Married  womon  no  logal  existence,  genorally,  at 
common  law.  —  At  couiinou  law  a  wife  was  under  the 
power  and  authority  of  her  husband  ;'  her  legal  iden- 
tity was  merged  into  his,^  and  she  had  of  herself  no 
separate  legal  existence  in  the  eye  of  the  law,^  There- 
fore, all  her  contracts  were  absolutely  void  ;*  her  torts 
and  crimes  committed  in  her  husband's  presence  were 
his  rather  than  hers,^  and  she  could  neither  sue  nor  be 
sued  alone.^  But  the  inconvenience  of  the  strict  appli 
cation  of  this  fiction  gave  rise  to  exceptions,  and  it  be- 
came settled  gradually  that  a  married  woman  liad 
more  or  less  of  the  capacities  of  an  unmarried  Avoman,' 
wlien  permanently  abandoned  by  her  husband,^  Avhen 
hei  husband  was  civilly  dead,^  or  Avhen  she  was  di 
vorced  a  mensa  ct  thoro, -^^  and  Avhen  she  acted  in  rep- 
resentative capacities.^! 

1  Adams  V.  Kellogg,  Kirby,  195, 190;  1  Am.  Dec.  18  ;  Scarborough 
V.  Wat!iins,  9  Mon.  B.  540,  .5-15  ;  50  Am.  Dec.  528  ;  ante,  i  38. 

2  Barron,  24  Vt.  375,  398  ;  ante,  ?  38. 

3  Willock  II.  Xoble,  Law  11.  7  II.  L.  5S0,  533,  603  ;  ante  ?  38. 

4  White  V.  Wager,  25  X.  Y.  325,  323,  330  ;  post,  U  357,  368. 

5  Whitman  r.  Delano,  6  N.  H.  543,  545  ;  Mulvey  v.  State,  43  Ala. 
316,  318  ;  ante,  U  66,  68  ;  post,  U  421-125. 

6  Tucker  v.  Scott,  3  N.  J.  L.  955  ;  Hawes  Parties,  \l  03-70  ;  inst, 
II  428-463. 

7  These  exceptions  discussed :  Post,  \\  332-338. 


509  STATUS   OF   MARRIED   WOMEX.        ??   332-334 

8  Gregory  v.  Paul,  15  Mass.  31,  :e  ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  ?  177  ;  poal,  i  "Z2. 

9  Countess  v.  I'rodgers,  2  Vern.  104,  105 ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  J  475, 
2xjst,  §  :j;}4. 

10  Dean  v.  Richmond,  5  Pick.  461, 465,  i66  ;  Stewart  M.  &  J).  U  ■i'^h 
44J  ;  post,  i  *«. 

11  Hodsrten  v.  Lloyd,  2  Bro.  C.  C.  5:54,  543 ;  Noble  v.  Willock,  Law 
R.  8  Ch.  App.  778,  7S7  ;  post,  U  336,  482-487. 

ji  332.    Wife's  capacities  when  abandoned  by  hor  husband. 

—  When  a  husband  lias  abjured  the  realm  under  the 
old  common  law,  or  has  permanently  abandoned  his 
wife  and  the  State  by  the  present  law,  she  has  most  of 
the  caiiacities  of  a/emme  sole.^  Thus,  she  may  contract,* 
■wUl,^  sue,*  and  be  sued  ^  as  such, 

1  Discussed  Stewart  M.  &  D.  H  175-177.  In  addition  to  cases  there 
cited,  sue  Rliea  y  RhenntT,  1  Peters,  105,  107  ,  High  v  \Vorley,33  Ala. 
ly6 ;  Stiilwell  V.  Adams,  2J  Ark.  346  ;  Rogers  v.  Phillips,  5  Ark.  366 ;  47 
Am.  Dec  727;  Way  r  Peck,  47  Cu!:n.  2.J ;  Gallagher  c.  Dclargy,  57  Mo. 
2'3,  37  ;  Musick  v.  DobsoM,  76  Mo.  6J4,  Gli  ;  43  Am.  Rep  780  ;  Uanner  v. 
Berthold  U  Mo.  App.  351.  .355  ;  I  cwis  r.  Perkins,  06  N.  J.  L.  133  ;  llink- 
eon  V.  Williams,  41  N.  J.  L.  35,  37  ;  Nash  v.  Mitchell,  71  N.  Y.  l:)l) ;  27 
Am.  Ri'p.  3< ;  Boyce  v.  Owens,  1  Hill,  8,  10  ;  Beckman  v.  Stanley,  8 
Nev.  257.261  ;  Bean  1'.  Morgan,  4  McCord.  148;  Mason  v  Jordan,  13 
R.  L  1!>3,  1115  ;  Yeatman  v.  Bellmaiu,  6  Lea,  488 ;  post,  i'i  'Ml,  358,  394, 
412,441,451. 

2  Bean  v.  Morgan,  4  McCord,  143  ;  post,  ?  353. 

3  Countess  v.  Prodgors,  2  Vern.  104, 105  j  post,  i  3-:2. 

4  Love  V.  Moynehan,  16  111.  27.1,  2-32 ;  post,  i  4-11. 

5  Gregory  ?•.  Paul,  15  Mass.  31,  34 ;  post,  ?  -i'A. 

g  333.  Capacities  of  wiio  divorced  a  monsa  ot  tlioro. — 
Afcer  a  divorce  a  mensa  et  thoro  the  woman  has  still  a 
husband,  and  is  not,  therefore,  a  fenime  sole,  and  so  in 
England  she  is  held  to  remain  under  all  the  disabilities 
of  coverture ;  but  in  the  United  States  a  dilferent  rule 
has  been  adopted,  and  she  may  general!}^  contract,  sue, 
bfe  .sued,  etc.,  as  if  unmarried.' 

1    Di.scussed  in  Stewart  M.  &  D.  i  449. 

§  334.    Capacities  of  wife  whose  husband  is  civilly  dead. 

—  When  one  is  outlawed,  banished,  imprisoned  for  life, 
etc  ,  he  is  civilly  dead,  and  his  Avife  has  the  capacities 
of  a  femme  sole.^  Thus,  she  may  contract,''  will,^  sue/ 
and  be  sued,*  as  if  unmarried. 


gg  S35-336      STATUS  of  married  womex.  510 

1  Discussed  Stewart  JI.  &  D.  §  475. 

2  Boyce  v.  Owens,  1  Hill,  8,  10  ;  post,  ?  .T>S. 

3  Coward,  4  Swab.  &  T.  -16  ;  34  Law  J.  Prob.  120  ;  post,  I  342. 

4  Gregory  ti.  Paul,  15  Mass.  31,  32  ;  post,  i  441. 

5  Worthinston  r.  Cooko,  52  Md.  237,  307  ;  post,  J  451. 

§  335.  Capacities  of  wife  whon  husband  is  not  sui  juris. 
—  As  a  general  rule,  the  insanity,  infancy,  or  other 
incapacity  of  a  husband  does  not  aft'ect  the  personal 
status  of  his  wife.'  A  deed  by  an  infant  husband  and 
his  wife  of  her  property  is  voidable  by  him,  and  if 
avoided  by  him,  void  as  to  her  also.^  A  husband's 
mere  sickness  or  inability  does  not  give  his  wife  tlie 
power  to  act  for  him,^  except  so  far  as  this  is  necessary 
for  tlie  support  of  his  family  or  the  preservation  of  his 
property;*  and  there  can  bo  no  implication  of  her 
agency  in  fact  if  he  is  insano.^  But  if  he  is  insane  and 
confined  in  an  asylum  out  of  the  State,  she  has  the 
capacities  of  a  femme  sole,  just  as  if  he  were  civilly 
dcad.^  A  statute  which  provides  that  when  from 
drunkenness,  profligacy,  or  otlier  cause,  a  hu.sband 
fails  to  provide  for  his  wife,  she  may  act  as  if  sole,  does 
not  under  "other  cause"  include  insanity,  but  only 
some  cause  Avithin  the  husband's  control.' 

1  There  seem  to  be  no  cases  just  on  this  point. 

2  Barber  v.  Wilson,  4  Heisli.  2(;8,  IGi,  271. 

3  Sawyer  v.  Cutting,  23  Vt.  48r>,  491. 

4  Ante,  I'M.  I 

5  Alexander  v.  Miller,  16  Pa.  St.  215,  220. 

6  Gnstin  r.  Carpenter,  51  Vt.  585,  587. 

7  Edsour.  I  lay  den,  20  Wis.  682,  684. 

I  S36.  C2pi:i'd33  of  a  married  woman  acting  in  a  repre- 
sentative pojitio-i.  —  When  a  married  woman  acts  as 
trustee,  guardian,  administratrix  or  executrix,  agent, 
or  any  representative  capacity ,^  two  questions  may 
arise:  iirst,  how  far  she  is  under  disability  as  to  her 
personal   responsibilities  —  how  far  she  is  personally 


511  STATUS    OF    JIABniED    WOMEN.  g    337 

bound  and  has  personal  rights ;  and  second,  how  far 
she  is  under  disability  as  to  the  person  or  the  estate 
which  she  represents.  As  a  rule,  the  fact  that  she  acts 
in  a  representative  capacitj''  does  not  affect  her  personal 
status  or  give  her  the  right  to  bind  herself  isersonally, 
but  it  does  give  her  tlie  power  to  bind  the  person  or 
estate  she  rei^resents  as  if  she  were  a  femme  sole.'^ 
Thus,  she  would  not  be  liable  personally  to  her  i^rinei- 
pal  foi  money  collected  by  her  as  agent,''  though  her 
receii^t  given  as  agent  to  the  debtor  would  be  a  full 
discharge.*  Of  course,  she  can  bind  herself  pei'sonally 
for  torts  connected  with  an  estate  held  by  her  in  a  rep- 
resentative caimcity,^  for  slie  can  commit  torts  even  at 
common  law ;  ^  and  so  her  husband  is  liable  with  her 
for  lior  devastavit.'  And  for  conformity  her  husband 
is  generally  joined  witli  her  in  suits  respecting  or  aris- 
ing out  of  her  dealings  as  trustee,  etc.^ 

1  Discussed  post,  ch.  xxviii.  ?J  482-487. 

2  See  llodsden  v.  Lloyd,  2  Bro.  C.  C  534,  543 ;  Willock  v.  Noble, 
Law  K.  7  H.  L  6.S0,  58!) ;  Scammell  v.  Willvinson,  2  East,  556,  557  ; 
Adams?'.  Kellogg,  Kirby,  195, 1S»7;  1  Am.  Dec.  18;  Lee  v.  Bennett,  31 
Miss.  Hi),  12(!  C  utter  v.  Butler,  25  N.  H.  343,  353;  57  Am.  Dec.  3:50  ; 
West,  3  Hand.  373,  375. 

3  Andrews  v.  Ormsbee,  11  Mo.  400,  402  ;  Carleton  v.  Haywood,  49 
N.  H.  314,  320. 

4  For  a  married  woman  may  be  an  agent :  ..4n^e,  ?§  89-98  ;  posM  484' 

5  Bobe  V.  Frowner,  18  Ala.  8D,  05 ;  ante,  §  66,  n.  23. 

6  Discussed  jwst,  U  42W25. 

7  Phillips  II.  Richardson,  4  Marsh.  J.  J.  212,  215;  Ferguson  v. 
Collins,  8  Ark.  241,  252. 

8  Buck  V.  Fisher,  2  Colo.  709,  710  ;  Ludlow  v.  Marsh,  3  N.  .T.  L.  983  . 
Byrne  v.  Van  Hoesen,  5  Johns.  66;  Mitchell  v.  Wright,  4  Tex.  2«3; 
post,  U  430,  449. 

§  SS7.  Wife's  capacities  in  equity.  —  Great  inconven- 
ience was  found  to  result  from  the  fiction  of  the  non- 
existence, in  the  eye  of  tlie  law,  of  wives;  and  courts 
of  equity,  from  tlie  earliest  times,  recognized  their 
legal  existence  witli  respect  to  property  settled  on  them 
to  their  sole  and  separate  use  ;^  so  tliat  with  respect  to 


2§  S38-333     STATUS  of  marrikd  women.  &12 

such  property  married  women  liave  always  liad  many 
of  the  capacities  of  unmarried  women. ^  But  tliese  ca- 
l)acities  were  limited  to  the  aforesaid  projierty  ;  *  a  wife 
has  no  greater  personal  capacity  in  equity  than  at  law.* 

1  Rosenthal  v.  Mayhugh,  3;!  Ohio  St.  155, 1G5. 

2  Djocussod  ante,  U  107-216. 

3  Johnso:i  v.  Cummings,  16  N.  J.  Eq  97, 106  ;  ante,  ?  206. 
i  Butler  V.  Buckingham,  5  Day,  492,  501 ;  5  Am.  Dec.  17-1. 

§  338.  Wife's  capacity  under  statutes.  —  It  is  to  statutes 
to-day  that  we  must  look,  for  tlie  most  part,  in  order 
to  determine  tlie  status  of  married  women.  For  in  all 
the  States  the  common-law  system  of  coverture  lias 
been  more  or  less  destroyed  by  legislation.  The  main 
difficulty  lies  in  determining  how  far  a  particular  stat- 
ute has  modified  the  pre-existing  law.i 

1    Discussed  ante,  H  10-18  ;  post,  U  340,  el  sei], 

I  339.  Double  disability — Coverture  and  infancy,  etc. — 
When  a  party  lal)ors  under  several  disabilities,  each 
must  be  considered  by  itself,  and  must  be  given  as 
great  effect  as  if  it  existed  bj^  itself.'  In  tlie  absence 
of  express  legislation,  neitlier  a  man  nor  a  woman 
attains  full  age  by  marrying,^  althougli  a  marriage 
witli  tlie  parents'  consent  emancipates  an  infant,^  and 
gives  such  infant  the  riglit  to  his  or  her  earnings,*  and 
althougli  at  common  law  guardianship,  as  well  of  per- 
son as  of  property  of  a  female  infant,  ceased  on  her 
marriage,^  because  inconsistent  Avith  the  husband's 
rights  ;^  or  rather,  it  jaassed  to  her  husband,^  as  guard- 
ianship of  person  still  does^  (tliough  a  husband  has 
been  lield  to  have  no  greater  right  than  a  third  party 
to  be  appointed  guardian  of  an  insane  A\ife^),  while 
under  separate  property  acts  tlie  husband  is  no  longer 
guardian  of  liis  wife's  propertj^  and  therefore  the  rea- 
son for  tliis  part  of  the  rule  is  gone.'"    A  statute  which 


513  STATUS   OF   MARHIKD   WOJIKN.  g    339 

enables  a  married  Avoman  to  make  certain  contracts  if 
of  "full  age,"  means  full  age  generally,  not  full  age 
for  marrying,"  The  husband  of  an  infant  has  the 
same  marital  rights  and  liabilities  as  the  husband  of 
an  adult.'2  Infancy  and  coverture  are  separate  and 
distinct  disabilities,  and  each  must  be  considered  by 
itself.  13  They  may  exist  separately,  or  they  may  co- 
exist. When  they  co-exist,  the  removal  of  the  one  in 
no  way  is  a  removal  of  the  other ;  i*  and  the  same  ap- 
plies to  insanity  and  coA'erture,  etc.^^  Thus,  a  statute 
authorizing  deeds  by  married  women  does  not  affect 
the  invalidity  of  an  infant  married  woinan's  deed  due 
to  her  infancy  ;'^  and  an  infant  married  woman's  deed 
of  dower,'^  or  of  her  own  separate  property,'^  made  in 
accordance  v.ith  a  married  woman's  act,  is  voidable.'^ 
And  the  same  rule  applies  to  statutes  enabling  married 
women  to  will,20  or  to  sue  and  be  sued.^'  On  the  other 
hand,  a  deed  of  an  infant  mai-ried  woman,  not  valid 
under  the  married  woman's  aet,^^  j^.  absolutely  void, 
and  cannot  be  ratified  by  the  married  woman  on  at- 
taining full  age.^  The  deed  of  an  infant  married 
woman  being  voidable  for  infancy,  the  question  arises 
whetlier  it  can  be  avoided  or  confirmed  wliile  the  dis- 
ability of  coverture  eontinues,^^  The  general  rule  at 
common  law,  and  even  under  modern  acts,'»  since  the 
coercion  of  the  husband  over  the  wife  is  not  destroyed,^^ 
is  that  the  wife  cannot  confirm  the  deed,  except  by  a 
new  deed  executed  in  accordance  with  the  married 
woman's  acts  after  attaining  full  age,^^  until  both  of 
her  disabilities  have  been  removed  ;2^  that  is  to  saj', 
until  she  has  attained  full  age,  and  coverture  has  been 
terminated  by  death  ^9  or  divorce.^"  A  statute  which 
enables  a  woman  to  confirm  her  deeds  during  cover- 
ture does  not  compel  her  so  to  do.^i  But  as  to  statutory 
separate  property,  a  married  woman  may  be  estopped ;  ^^ 


§    339  STATUS   OF   MARRIKD   WO.MEX.  514 

and  it  seems  that  by  her  conduct  during  coverture, 
after  attaining  full  age,  she  may  estop  herself  from 
avoiding  her  deed  after  the  determination  of  covert- 
ure.^' Neither  can  she,  it  is  said,  during  coverture, 
disaffirm  her  deed  by  any  act  in  pais;^*^  but  a  husband 
can  disaffirm  a  deed  of  his  wife's  in  which  he  as  infant 
joined.^^  Still,  by  making  another  conveyance  during 
coverture,'^  or  by  bringing  suit  for  the  land,^^  she  may 
disaffirm  her  deed ;  and  under  modern  statutes  it  is  said 
she  may  disaffirm  her  deeds  generally  during  covert- 
ure.^^ She  need  not  restore  the  consideration.'^  But 
she  must  not  delay  her  avoidance  beyond  a  reasonable 
time  after  the  cessation  of  coverture.^"  A  statute  validat- 
ing deeds  of  infant  married  women  is  not  retrospective 
in  its  operation.*!  The  effect  of  a  double  disability  under 
the  Statute  of  liimitations  is  elsewhere  discussed.*^ 

1  Spranton  v.  Stewart,  52  Iiid.  fiS,  91 ;  Afl.ams  v.  Palmpr,  51  Me. 
480,  4SS ;  Bool  v.  Mix,  17  Wend.  119,  129.  See  Schouler  Dom.  Rel.  426  ; 
2  Bish.  M.  W.  ?9  51.'?,  516,  .524;  Macplier.  Inf.  113;  Sims  r.  Everhart, 
W-  V.  S.  300,  311  ;  Greenwoofl  v.  Coleman,  34  Ala.  loO,  151 ;  Wliitman 
1'.  Abernathy,  33  Ala.  151,  159;  Watson  v.  Billiiii,'s,  38  Ark.  278,  2,S0  ; 
42  Am.  Rep.  1  ;  MaRee  v.  Welsh,  IS  Cal.  155,  15  i ;  Iloyt  v.  Swan,  53 
III  i:?4,  HO;  Buchanan  v.  Hubbard,  96  Ind.  1,3,  5;  Sims  v.  Bardoner, 
86  Tnd  87  97  ;  Sims  v.  Smith,  86  Ind.  577,  5sl  ;  Strincrer  v.  Northwest- 
ern, 82  Ind.  100, 108  ;  Low  v.  Long,  41  Ind.  5S6, 595 ;  Miles  v.  Lingernian, 
24  Ind.  3S.5.  a87  ;  Hartman  v.  Kendall,  4  Ind.  403,  404  ;  OMham  v.  Sale, 
I  Mon.  B.  76, 77  ;  Prewitt  v.  Graves,  5  Marsh.  J.  .1.  1 15, 120  ;  Phillips  v. 
Green,  3  Marsh.  A.  K.  7,  11  ;  5  Mon.  .344,  .3.50  ;  Webb  v.  Hall,  35  Me. 
336,  338;  Adams  v.  Palmer,  51  Me.  4-<0,  4!i8  ;  t-lenn  v.  Clark,  53  Md. 
5S0,  603, 604  ;  Kendall'  v.  Lawrence,  22  Pick.  540,  .513  ;  Chandler  v.  Mc- 
Kinney,  6  Mich.  217,  220;  Dixon  v.  Merritt,  21  Minn.  196,  199,  200; 
Markham  v.  IMerrett,  8  Miss.  4.37,  444  ;  Youse  v.  Noroums,  12  Mo.  .549, 
564"  51  Am.  Dec.  175;  Noroums  v.  Cheatham,  21  Mo.  25,  29  ;  Ross  r. 
Adams,  28  N.  J.  L.  160,  163  ;  Porce  v.  Fries,  18  N.  J.  Eq.  204,  208  ;  San- 
ford  V  McLean,  3  Paige,  117,  121,  122;  Zimmerman  v.  Schoenfeldt,  3 
Hun,  692,  698  ;  Mcllvaine  v.  Kadel,  .30  How.  Pr.  193,  195  ;  Sherman  v. 
Garfield,  :  Denio,  329,  330  ;  Priest  r.  Cummings,  20  Wend.  3.38,  .349  ; 
Cresinger  v.  Welch,  15  Ohio  St.  159,  191;  Card  v.  Patterson,  5  Ohio 
.St.  319,  324  ;  Drake  v.  Ramsay,  5  Ohio,  251,  252 ;  Hughes  r.  Watson,  10 
Ohio,  127,  134;  Williams  r.  Baker,  71  Pa.  .St.  476,  4S2;  Shrader  r. 
Decker,  9  Pa.  St.  4, 16;  Tillinghast  v.  Holbrook,  7  R.  I.  230,  233  ;  Mc- 
Morris  v.  Webb,  17  S.  C.  5.58,  .562;  43  Am.  Rep.  629;  Jfatherson  v. 
Davis.  2  Cold.  44.3,  448,  4.50;  Barker  v.  Wilson,  4  Heisk.  26^.  269,  271  : 
Dodd  V.  Benthal,  4  Heisk.  601,  607;  Thomas  r.  Gammel,  6  Leigh,  9, 
12;  Armstrong  v.  Walkup,  12  Gratt.  608,  613. 

2  McMorris  v.  Webb,  17  S.  C.  558,  562  ;  43  Am.  Rep.  620  ;  2  Bish.  M. 
W.  §  513. 


515  STATUS  OP   MARRIED  WOMEN.  g   339 

3  Bricksport  v.  Rockland,  SR  Me.  22.  2.1 ;  Taunton  v.  Plvmoiith,  15 
Mass.  203, 204  ;  Burr  v.  Wilson,  18  Tex.  36v,  370. 

4  Sutyrn,  n.  3.    But  see  White  v.  Henrj',  24  Me.  531,  533. 

5  Nicholson  V.  Wllborn,  13  Oa.  4fi7,471 ;  Post,  47  Ind.  142,  H3  ;  Bart- 
lett  V.  Cowlcs,  15  Gray,  445,  440  ;  Force  v.  Fries,  18  N.  J.  Eq.  204,  207, 
20.S;  CummlnRR,  11  Pa.  St.  272,  274  ;  Jones  v.  Ward,  10  Yerg.  160,  171 ; 
Bnrr  i\  Wilson,  18  Tex.  3G7,  375;  Armstrong  v.  Walkup,  12  Gratt. 
608,  613. 

6  Porce  V.  Fries,  18  N.  J.  Eq.  201,  207 ;  sujyra,  ii.  5. 

7  Burr  v.  Wilson,  18  Tex.  367,  375  ;  supra,  n.  5. 

8  Cummings,  11  Pa.  St.  272,  274. 

9  Fegan,45C.al.  176, 177. 

10  Cummings,  11  Pa.  St.  272,  274. 

11  McMorrls  v.  Webb,  17  S.  C.  558,  562  ;  43  Am.  Rep.  620. 

12  Nicholson  v.  Wllborn,  13  Ga.  467,  470. 

13  SImsT.  Bardoner,  86  Ind.  87,  97;  Adams  v.  Palmer,  51  Me.  480, 
48S  ;  Bool  V.  Mix,  17  Wend.  119,  129  ;  31  Am.  iJec.  285  ;  supra,  n.  1. 

14  Watson  V.  Billings,  38  Ark.  278,  280;  42  Am.  Rep.  1  ;  Adams  v. 
Palmer,  57  Me.  480,  488  ;  supra,  n.  1. 

15  Webb  V.  Hall,  35  Me.  336,  838  ;  Adams  v.  Palmer,  51  Me.  480,  488  ; 
6ool  V.  Mix,  17  Wend.  119, 133;  31  Am.  Kec.  285. 

16  Hughes  V.  Watson,  10  Ohio,  127,  l:i4  ;  supra,  u.  1. 

17  Glenn  t\  Clark,  53  Md.  580,  603,  604  ;  cases  ante,  i  271 ;  sripra,  n.  1. 

18  Greenwood  v.  Coleman,  84  Ala.  150,  154  ;  Sims  v.  Bardoner,  86 
Ind.  87,  90 ;  Low  v.  Long,  41  Ind.  586,  595 ;  Phillips  v.  Green,  o  Mon.  344, 
aso  ;  Webb  v.  Hall,  35  Me.  8,-^6,  338  ;  Sanford  v.  McLean,  3  Paige,  117, 
121, 122  ;  Bool  V.  Mix,  17  Wend.  119,  1:50 ;  31  Am.  Dec.  285  ;  Card  v.  Pat- 
terson, 5  Ohio  St.  319,324 ;  Burr  v.  Wilson,  18  Tex.  367,  375. 

19  Cresinger  v.  Welch.  15  Ohio,  159,  191 ;  45  Am.  Dec.  566.  S.  P., 
Watson  ti.  Billings,  38  Ark.  278,  280;  Sims  v.  Bardoner,  86  Ind.  87,  90  ; 
Adams  v.  Palmer,  57  Me.  480,  488;  Youse  t'.  Norcums,  12  Mo.  549,  560, 
663 ;  51  Am.  Dec.  175  ;  Card  v.  Patterson,  5  Ohio  St.  319,  324  ;  ante, 
«271. 

20  Zimmerman  v.  Schoenfeldt,  3  Hun,  692,  698, 

21  Wood,2Palge,108;  2Bish.  M.  W.  {303,  Butsee  Jones,18Me.308, 
513;  36  Am.  Dec.  723. 

22  Post,  ch.  xxli.,  ?5  894-40.8. 

23  Scranton  ?>.  Stewart,  52  Ind.  68,  9a 

24  Buchanan  t'.  Hubbard,  96  Ind.  1,  5. 

25  Scranton  t\  Stewart,  52  Ind.  68,93;  m/rft,  n.  28.  But  see  infra, 
11.33. 

26  Miles  V.  Lingerman,  24  Ind.  385, .388  ;  Scranton  v.  Stewart,  .52  Ind. 
es,  92  ;  Dodd  v.  Benthal,  4  Heisk.  601,  607  ;  ante,  U  H.  62,  66,  68,  121. 

27  Miles  V.  Lingerman,  24  Ind.  385, 388;  Williams  r.  Baker, 71  Pa.  .St. 

476, 483. 

28  Sims  V.  Everhart,  102  U.  S.  300,  309,  310  ;  Magee  v.  Welsh,  18  Cal. 
1.".5,  1.59;  Sims  v.  Bardoner,  86  Ind.  87,91,  97:  Sims  r.  Smith,  86  Ind. 
677,  .579 ;  Youse  r.  Norcums,  12  Mo.  .549,  564  ;  51  Am.  Dec.  175  ;  Dodd  v, 
Eenthal,4  Heisk.  601,  607  ;  Matherson  v.  Davis,  2  Cold.  443,  448-4.50. 

20    Hartman  v.  Kendall,  4  Ind.  401,  404. 


I    339  STATUS   OF   MARBIKD   WOMKN.  51 G 

30  Sims  V.  Everhart,  101  U.  S.  300,  311. 

31  Miles  7'.  Lingerman,  24  Iiid.  385,  388. 

S2    Discussed  fully  post,  ch.  xxiii.,  ??  40M23. 

33  See  Sims  v.  Everhart,  102  U.  S.  300, 307  ;  Scran  ton  v.  Stewart.  IT 
lud.  G8,  93  ;  Stringer  v.  Northwestern,  8:2  Ind.  100,  lOS. 

34  Dodd  ?>.  Benthal,4  neisk.  GOl.GOT.  See  Mcllva'.ne  r.  Kadel,  30 
How.  I'r.  103,  195. 

35  Barker  v.  Wilson,  4  Heisk.  2C3,  26:)-271. 

36  Youse  t).  Norcums,  12  Mo.  54D,  5fi4  ;  51  Am.  Dec.  175;  Norcums 
V.  Cheatham,  21  Mo.  25,29;  Ross  v.  Adams,  28  X.  J.  L.  IfiO,  103.  Cuittni, 
how  V.  Long,  41  Iiid.  586,  697. 

37  Webb  v.  Hall,  35  Me.  336,  333. 

38  Buchanan  v.  Hubbard,  96  Ind.  1,  3. 

39  Buchanan  v.  Hubbard,  06  Ind.  1,4  ;  Low'?'.  Long,  41  Ind.5.S6, 600; 
Miles  ('.  Lingerman,  24  Ind.  385,  3s7  ;  Markham  v.  Merritt,  8  Miss.  4:J7, 
444. 

40  Sims  V.  Bardoner,  86  Tnd.  87,  93  ;  Scranton  v.  titewart,  52  lud. 
68,  96 ;  supixi,  u.  28. 

41  Adams  v.  Palmer,  51  Me.  480, 489. 

42  J'ost.i-iio. 


517  WILLS   OF   MAnuiED  WOMEN.  §    340' 

CHAPTER  XX. 

WILLS   OF    MAKKIED   WOMEN. 

i  aw.  Testamentary  law  as  applied  to  married  women. 

i  341.  Wills  of  married  women  at  common  law,  generally. 

I  .342.  Wills  of  married  women  at  common  law,  exceptions. 

J  343.  Wills  of  married  women  in  equity. 

I  344.  Wills  of  equitable  separate  property. 

§  345.  Wills  of  married  womeli  under  statutes. 

{  346.  Wills  of  statutory  separate  property. 

'i  S47.  Validity  and  operation  of  wills  distinguished. 

i  348.  Effect  of  husband's  Consent  to  wife's  will. 

I  349.  Mutual  wills  of  husband  and  wife. 

5  350.  Gifts  ca((.sa  JAior/i'v  of  married  women. 

i  351.  Hevocation  of  will  by  married  woman. 

§  352.  ^\'■ills  made  by  woman  before  her  marriage. 

I  353.  Wills  republished  after  dissolution  of  marriage. 

J  354.  Conflict  of  laws  as  to  wills. 

§  340.  Testamentary  law,  as  applied  to  married  women. 
—  Bj'"  the  common  law,  before  tlie  statute  of  wills,  the 
right  of  testamentary  disposition  of  property  did  not 
extend  to  real  estate  ;  and  as  to  personalty,  it  was  lim- 
ited, unless  the  testator  had  neither  wife  nor  children.' 
This  statute  was  held  not  applicable  to  married  wo- 
men,' because  they  were  regarded  as  without  will  of 
their  own,  and  under  the  jjower  of  tlicir  husbands,^  and 
because  a  power  in  them  to  will  would  have  conflicted 
with  the  liusband's  marital  rights.*  As  to  personalty, 
the}'  had  no  power  to  will  independently  of  statute, 
because  such  property  vested  in  the  husljand  abso- 
lutely l)y  marriage.*  Therefore,  a  married  woman's 
power  to  will  must  be  found  in  an  express  statute,^  or 
in  some  circumstances  which  relieve  her  of  the  disabil- 
ities of  coverture.' 

1  r.edf.  Wills,  3  ;  2  Blackst.  Com.  402  ;  post,  ?  345. 

2  Calverlye,  Dver,  n*!  h  ',  Marston  v.  Norton,  5  N.  H.  205,  21 1  :  nosl, 
1 341. 

11.  &  W.-44. 


^g    341-342  WILLS  OF   MARRIED   WOMEN.  518 

3  Burton  v.  Holly,  18  Ala.  40S,  411  ;  Marston  v.  Norton,  5  N.  H, 
205,211. 

4  Willock  V.  Noble,  Law  II.  7  H.  L.  580,  589,  60;{. 

5  Cutter  v.  Butler,  25  N.  II.  343,  354,  35fi  ;  57  A  m.  Dec.  330. 

6  Warner,  37  Vt.  356,  3GS  ;  2^ost,  ?  345. 

7  Wlllock  V.  Noble,  Law  R.  7  H.  L.  580,  5;)0  ;  i^ost,  i  342. 

g  341.  Wills  of  married  women  at  common  law,  gener- 
ally.—  At  common  law  the  will  of  a  married  woman 
was,  generally,  a  mere  nullity,^  because  by  marriage 
her  legal  existence  was  merged  in  that  of  her  hus- 
band ;  ^  she  had  no  separate  disposing  power ;  ^  she  was 
not  Sid  juris  ;^  she  was  not  a  free  agent,^but  Avas  under 
the  power  and  control  of  her  husband ;  ^  her  incapacity 
depended  also  on  the  fact  that  she  had  nothing  to  dis- 
pose of,  it  is  said.^  The  disability  of  coverture  in  re- 
spect to  wills  differs  materially  from  that  of  intancy, 
idiocy,  or  lunacy ;  *  and  though  it  be  removed,  any 
other  disability  will  remain.** 

1  Steadman  v.  Powell,  1  Addis.  58,  60  ;  Tucker  ?i.  Nunan,4  Man. 
&  G.  1049 ;  Fane,  16  Sim.  406  ;  Cutter  r.  Butler,  25  N.  H.  343,  .^50;  .57 
Am.  Dec.  3:J0:  yanWinkle  v.  Schoonmaker,  15  N.  J.  Eq.  385,  386; 
infra,  notes  3-7. 

2  Hood  V.  Archer,  1  McCord,  225,  226. 

3  Willock  V.  Noble,  Law  R.  7  H.  L.  580,  589. 

4  Marston  v,  Norton,  6  N.  H.  205,  212. 

5  Wakefield  v.  Phelps,  37  N.  H.  295,  299. 

6  Adams  v.  Kellogg,  Kirbv,  195,  196;  1  Am.  Dec.  18;  Burton  v. 
Holly,  18  Ala.  408,  411  ;  Marston  v.  Norton,  5  N.  H.  205, 211. 

7  Willock  ti.  Noble,  La,w  R.  7  H.  L.  580,  603. 

8  1  Jarman  Wills,  .3.8. 

9  Zimmermaii  v.  SchofiMfeldt,  3  Hun,  692, 698 ;  ante,  ?  33D. 

I  342.  Wills  of  niarri^d  woman  at  common  law,  excep- 
tions.—  At  common  law  a  married  woman  who,  owing 
to  peculiar  circumstances,  had  the  capacities  of  a,/cmine 
sole,^  could  make  a  will ;''  as  where  her  husband  was 
civilly  dead,*  being,  for  e^^mple,  banished  for  life  ;  *  but 
the  adultery  and  desertion  of  her  husband  did  not  en- 
able her  to  paake  a  will,*    3>o  Avhen  she  was  acting  in  a 


519  WILLS   OP   MARRIED   AVOMKN.  §    342 

representative  capacity,  for  example,  as  executrix,  she 
could  make  a  will  ;^  or  where  she  was  acting  for  and  in 
the  place  of  another,  as  wlien  she  made  a  will  of  person- 
alty with  her  Imsband's  consent,'  or  under  a  power.^ 
For  there  is  no  question  of  the  right  of  a  married 
woman  to  execute  a  powder  »f  any  kind  ;^  she  may  will 
realty  even,  under  a  power  given  by  a  mere  agreement 
between  her  and  lier  husband  before  marriage ; '"  and 
when  she  acts  under  a  power  tlie  wliole  doctrine  of  dis- 
ability bj""  coverture  is  eliminated."  In  executing  a 
power  she  need  not  conform  to  the  requirements  of 
married  women  statutes,''^  or  liave  the  consent  or  join- 
der of  her  husband  ;  '^  she  may  execute  it  in  favor  of 
her  husband  ; "  her  mode  of  executing  it,  and  her  right 
to  do  so,  are  unaflFected  by  married  women's  enabling 
acts,'^  But  she  must  refer  to  the  power,  unless  the  will 
would  be  of  no  effect  otherwise  ;  ^^  and  a  power  "  to  sell, 
use,  or  exchange  "  is  not  a  power  to  will,'"  She  may 
revoke  a  will  made  under  a  power  by  another  subse- 
quent Avill.'*  But  any  paper'which  is  to  take  effect  as  a 
will  must  be  probated.'^ 

1  Discussed  ante,  U  ■'5.'!2-OSa. 

2  See  Cutter  v.  Butler,  25  N.  H.  343, 350-3M ;  57  Am.  Dec.  330. 

3  Coward,  4  Swah.  &  T.  46  ;  34  Law  J.  Prob.  120  ;  Cutter  v.  Butler, 
25  N.  H.  343,  ;«3 ;  67  Am.  Dec.  3:10.  Consult  Martin,  2  Rob.  405  ;  15  Jur. 
6S6  ;  Coombs  c.  Queen,  2  Rob.  547  ;  16  .Tur.  820;  Harrington,  29  Beav. 
24  ;  Franks,  I  Maule  &  S.  11  ;  7  Bing.  762  ;  Atlee  v.  Hook,  23  Law  J 
Cli.  776  ;  Gougli  v.  Davies,  2  Kay  &  J.  625,  627 ;  ante,  I  334. 

4  Countess  v.  Prodgers,  2  Vorn.  104, 105. 

5  Vreeland  v.  Ryno,  26  N.  J.  Eq.  160, 163. 

6  Hodsdenv.  Llovd,2Bro.  C.  C.  534,  543  ;  Adams  v.  Kellnffe,  Kirhv, 
105,  107  ;  1  Am.  Dee.  IS  ;  Seammell  v.  Wilkinson,  2  East,  5.56,  .5.57  ;  Wil- 
lock  V.  Noble,  Law  R.  7  H.  L.  5S0,  5SI);  Lee  v.  Bennett,  31  Miss.  119, 
126;  Cutter  v.  Butler,  25  N.  H.  34.3,  353;  57  Am.  Dee.  330  ;  West,  3 
Band.  373,  375. 

7  Marston  v.  JSTorton,  5  N.  11.  205,  210  ;  post,  I  348. 

8  Nobl'»  V.  Willock,  Law  R.  8  Ch.  778,  7S7 ;  Ross  r.  Ewer,  3  Atk. 
1.56,  160;  Pi'-quet  V.  Swan,  4  Mason,  443.  AC,\  .  Anderson  r.  Miller,  6 
Marsli.  J.  J.  r,M,  ,57:!  ;  George  v.  llnssini,'.  15  Moii.  I'..  r,."is,  .'>ii;i  ;  Morv  11. 
Miehael,  18  JIil.  227,  241  ;  Solilev  r.  Mr(  fricv,  :;i;  Md.  267,  273  ;  Holihan 
V.  Perry,  4  .Alct.  492,  498 ;  Osgood  r.  Bleed,  12  Mass.  525.  5.32 ;  Cutter  v. 
Butler,  25  A'.  H.  »43,  354.  3j5,  353 ;  57  Am.  Dec.  330  ;  Bradish  v.  Gibbs  3 


§^  343-344       WILLS  OB'  jiaruied  womkx.  520 

Johns.  Ch.  523,  540;  Newlin  i'.  Freeman,  1  Jred.  514,  SCO;  Jones  ?■. 
Shields,  14  Ohio,  35!) ;  Wagner,  2  Aslim.  448,  451  ;   Barnes  v.  Irwin,  2 
Ball,  im,  201 ;  1  Am.  Dec.  278;  West,  10  Serg.  &  K.  44.},  447  ;  West,  3 
Band.  37:i,  375  ;  Thorndilve  v.  Reynolds,  22  Gratt.  21 ;  ante,  'i  208. 
9    Schley  i'.  McCeney,  .36  Md.  207,  273. 

10  "Bradish  v.  fiibbs.  3  Johns.  Ch.  .523,  ,540;  Barnes  v.  Irwln,2  Dall. 
ISy,  20.1 ;  1  Am.  Dec.  278  ;  West,  lOSerg.  &  R.  445,  447. 

,11    N'oblo  V.  WiUock,  Law  R.  8  Ch.  778, 787. 

•'l2    .So'aley  t'.  McCeney,  36  3rd.  267, 274. 

13  Schleyi'.  McCeney,  3GMd.  267,  274;  rtrafc,?  208. 

14  Bradish  J'.  Gibbs,  3  Johns.  Ch.  623,  640  ;  ante,  U  50,  208. 

15  George  v.  Bussing,  15  Mon.  B.  538, 563. 

16  INfory  v.  Michael,  18  Md.  227,  241 ;  ante,  I  208. 
:17    Harris?',  llarbeson,  9  Bush,. 307,  402. 

18  Iliiwksley  ?-.  Barrow,  Law  R.  1  Pro.  &  D.  147, 152  ;  post,  I  351. 

19  Stone  r.  Forsvth,  2  Doug.707;  Ross  ti.  Ewer,  3  Atk.  156,  160; 
Picqtict  r.  Swan,  4  Mason,  443,  4i;i  ;  Cutter  v.  Butler,  25  N.  H.  ai3,  35:) ; 
57  Am.  Dec.  ;TJi ;  N.'Wlin  t'.  Freeman,  1  I  red.  514,  520. 

2  343.  Wills  of  married  womon  in  equity.  —  Since  courts 
of  equity  have  long  recognized  tlie  separate  existence 
and  separate  property  of  married  women,*  the  reasons 
for  the  incapacity  to  will  under  the  common  law  do  not 
exist  in  equity,'^  and  married  women's  wills  of  equi- 
table and  separate  estate  are  A'ery  common.*  So  wills 
Avhicli  are  valid  only  thi-ough  the  consent  of  the  hus- 
band are  sustained  onlj'-  in  equity.^ 

1  Discussed  ante,  U  8,  43, 197-210. 

,2  See  an^c,  ?  341. 

3  Ante,  |  20^  ;  jx,st,  §  3^4. 

4  Bradish  v.  Gibbs,  3  Johns.  Ch.  523,  .540  ;  jwxt,  ?  348. 

I  344.  Wills  of  equitable  separate  estate.  —  As  to  a 
married  woman's  wills  of  her  equitable  separate  estate 
there  are  tliree  views,  corresponding  to  the  three  view.s 
of  her  ijowor  over  such  estate  generally  :'  (1)  That  she 
stands  towards  this  estate  precisely  as  a  femme  sole, 
and  can  will  it,  be  it  real  or  personal;^  this  is  tlie 
English  and  the  common  view,*  (2)  That  she  has  over 
this  estate  only  the  powers  given  her  by  the  instru- 
ment creating  it,  and  can  will  it  only  under  a  jjower.'' 


521  WILLS   OF   MARRIED   WOMEN.  §   345 

(3)  That  she  has  the  powers  of  a  femme  sole  over  the 
personalty  and  the  profits  of  the  realty,  but  none  over 
the  realty  itself,  except  such  as  are  given  by  the  instru- 
ment creating  the  estate.*  Her  right  to  will,  when  it 
exists,  includes  the  right  to  destroy  the  husband's  cur- 
tesy ,8  to  will  to  the  husband  himself,'  and  to  appoint  an 
executor.8 

1  Discussed  ante,  ??  203,  208. 

2  Willock  V.  Noble,  Law  R.  7  H.  L.  580,  590  ;  Cutter  v.  Butler,  25 
N-  II.  3-i:!,  851 ;  27  Am.  Dec.  330 ;  Bradlsh  v.  Gibbs,  3  Johns.  Oh.  523,  540; 
Barnes  v.  Irwin,  2  Dall.  199,  203 ;  1  Am.  Dec.  278  ;  infra,  n.  3  ;  ante, 
J  208. 

3  Taylor  v.  Meade,  4  DeGex,  J.  &  S.  597,  607  ;  Pride  v.  Bubb,  Law 
R.  7  Ch.  64,  69 ;  Cooper  v.  McDonald,  7  Ch.  D.  288,  296  ;  Rich  v.  Cock- 
<'ll,  9  Ves.  369,  374;  Hall  v.  Waterhouse,  5  Gifif.  64,  68;  Braham  v. 
Biirchell,  3  Addis.  343,  363  ;  Pool  v.  Blakie,  53  111.  495,  502  ;  Michael  v. 
Mory,  12  Md.  158,  169  ;  supra,  n.  2  ;  ante,  ?  208. 

4  Wagner,  Ashm.  448,  451 ;  ante,  §§  208,  ai2. 

5  West,  3  Rand.  373,  375  ;  ante,  §  208. 

6  Cooper  v.  McDonald,  7  Ch.  D.  2S8,  298  ;  Pool  v.  Blakie,  a5  111.  495, 
502,503  ;  ante,  H  157,  212. 

7  Burton  v.  Holly,  18  Ala.  408, 411,  412 ;  ante,  ?  50. 

8  Churchill  v.  Dibben,  9  Sim.  447,  452. 

§  345.  WiUs  of  married  women  under  statutes.  —  Gen- 
eral .statutes  as  to  wills  do  not  affect  tlie  capacity  of 
married  women.i  A  statute  authorizing  a  wife  to  will 
generally  has  been  held  not  to  authorize  a  will  to  her 
husband ;  ^  but  the  soundness  of  this  rule  is  question- 
able.' A  statute  authorizing  her  to  will  her  "separate 
property  "  includes  whatever  property  the  legislature 
may  afterAvards  declare  separate.*  A  separate  prop- 
erty act,  which  says  nothing  as  to  wills,  does  not 
authorize  wills,*  though  a  contrary  view  is  sometimes 
taken. ^  A  statute  which  authorizes  conveyances  by 
implication  excludes  wills.'  An  enabling  act  does  not 
take  away  the  power  to  execute  a  will  in  accordance 
with  the  common-law  rules.^  A  statute  which  i.s  de- 
claratory of  tlie  common  law  is  construed  in  accord- 
ance therewith,  so  that  wlien  the  husband's  consent  is 


§   346  WILLS   OF   MARRIED   WOMEN.  522 

required  a  particular  consent  is  meant.^  A  statute  pro- 
hibiting a  husband,  from  witnessing  his  wife's  will 
does  not  render  it  unlawful  for  him  to  be  present  when 
she  executes  her  will.'"  These  statutes  are  said  to  be 
strictl3'  construed,"  but  this  rule  must  be  taken  with 
qualifications.^^ 

1  Adams  v.  Kellogg,  Kirbv,  195,  196;  1  Am.  Dec.  18;  Baker  v. 
Chastang,  18  Ala.  417,  423  ;  Reese  v.  Cochran,  10  Ind.  195,  197  ;  Osgood 
V.  Breed,  12  Mass.  525, 5:{0 ;  Marstoii  v.  Norton,  5  N.  H.  20.5, 210 ;  Cutter 
V.  Butler,  28  N.  H.  .m,  352  ;  57  Am.  Dec.  3;!0  ;  Wakefield  v.  Phelps,  :i7 
N.  H.  295,  300  ;  anlf,  ?  13.  But  see  .Voble  v.  Enos,  19  Ind.  42,  44  ; 
Bennett  v.  Hutchinson,  U  Kan.  398,  410  ;  Allen  v.  Little,  5  Oliio,  65. 

2  Fetch  V.  Brainard,  2  Day,  1G.3, 189  ;  Wakefield  r.  Phelps,  37  N.  H. 
295,  305. 

3  W'akefleld  v.  Phelps,  37  N.  H.  295,  :»2  ;  mite,  2  50  ;  post,  §  349. 

4  Emmert  v.  Hays,  89  111.  1,  13,  14. 

5  Cain  V.  Bunklev,  35  Miss.  119,  145;  Compton  v.  Pierson.  28  N.  J. 
Eq.  229,  2;a  ;  Naylor  v.  Field,  29  N.  J.  L.  281,  288. 

6  Mosser,  32  Ala.  5.51,  5.V).     Consult  an/e,  J  J  230,  240. 

7  Ilarkerr.  Elliott,  3  liar.  (Del.)  51,  53.    Compare  a»i.'e,  §  204. 

8  Buchanan  v.  Turner,  26  Md.  1,  7. 

9  Kurtz  V.  Saylor,  20  Pa.  St.  205,  209. 

10  Dickinson,  61  Pa.  St.  401,  406. 

11  Compton  V.  Pierson,  28  N.  J.  Eq.  229,  231. 

12  Discussed  ante,  1 16. 

I  346.  Wills  of  statutory  separate  property.  —  In  most 
of  the  States  the  separate  property  acts  provide  for  the 
willing  of  separate  propert}'.'  Whether  a  statute  which 
says  nothing  of  disposition  by  will,  but  secures  her 
property  to  her  as  a  femme  sole,  enables  her  to  will  it, 
is  doubtful,^  the  decisions  not  being  directly  in  point, 
as  those  relating  to  equitable  property  are.^  But  few 
cases  seem  to  have  arisen,  and  some  of  them  are  cited 
hereunder.^ 

1  See  ante,  ?  218  ;  3  Jarman  on  WllLs. 

2  P)o,  Mos.ser,  32  Ala.  651,555.  Contra,  Cain  v.  Bunklev,  35  Miss. 
119. 145  ;  Navlor  v.  Field.  29  N.  J.  L.  287,  288  ;  Compton  v.  Pierson,  28 
N.  J.  Eq.  229.  231  ;  ante,  I  240. 

3  See  aiUe,  I  344. 

4  Mosser,  .32  Ala.  551,  6.55  ;  Harker  v.  Elliott,  3  Har.  (Del.)  .51,  69; 
Cavenauffh  v.  Ainchbacker,  36  Ga.  500,  507;  Irquhart  ?'.  Oliver,  56 
Ga.  344,  347  ;  Emmert  i'.  Hays,  89  111.  1,  13,  14  ;  Tuller,  79  111.  99,  101 ; 


523  WILLS   OF   MARRIED   WOMEN.  §    S47 

Noble  V.  Enos,  19  Ind.  42,  4J  ;  Reese  v.  Cochran,  10  Ind.  195, 197  ;  Ben- 
nett V.  Hutcliinson,  11  Kan.  3J7,  408  ;  ScLiuH  v.  Murray.  32  Md.  9,  16; 
BucUanuii  v.  Turner, 26  Md.  1,  7;  Burroughs  ti.  Nutting,  105  Ma.ss.  228; 
Mar.shall  v.  Berry,  13  Allen,  43 ;  Silsby  v.  Bullock,  10  Allen,  94  ;  Heath 
V.  Withington,  6  Cu.sh.  497  ;  Osgood  r.  Breed,  12  Mass.  .525, 5:i0 ;  .Stewart 
V.  Ross,  50  Miss.  776  ;  Cain  v.  Bunkley,  35  Miss.  119, 145  ;•  Wakefield  v. 
Phelps,  37  N.  H.  295,  299-302;  Cutter  v.  Butler,  25  N.  H.  343,  3.53;  57 
Am.  Dec.  3"0  ;  Sanborn  v.  Batchelder,  51  N.  H.  426,  431  ;  Comptou  v. 
Pierson,  28  N.  J.  Eq.  229,  231  ;  Vreoland  v.  Kyno,  26  N  J.  Eq.  160,  162  ; 
Waters  v.  Cullen,  2  Bradf.  354  ;  Beal  v.  Storm,  26  N.  J.  Eq.  KiO.  162; 
Huston  V.  Cone,  24  Ohio  St.  U,  20,  22  ;  Allen  v.  Little,  5  Ohio,  65  ; 
Kurtz  V.  Saylor,  20  Pa.  St.  205,  209 ;  Clarke,  79  Pa.  St.  376,  377  ;  Dickin- 
son, 61  Pa.  St.  401, 406  ;  Stroud  v.  Connelly, 33  Oratt.  210, 220  ;  Thorndike 
V.  Reynolds,  22  Gratt.  21,  29  ;  Warner,  37  Vt.  356,  368. 

g  347.  Validity  and  operation  of  wills  distinguished. — 
A  distinction  must  be  made  between  the  validity  and 
the  operation  of  a  married  woman's  will.  At  common 
law  she  could  not  will,  first,  because  she  had  no  legal 
capacity,!  and  second,  because  during  her  husband's 
life  she  had  no  property  for  a  will  to  act  uijon  ;  ^  and  on 
the  one  hand  Ave  find  her  wills  su.stained  when  she  has 
no  capacity,  as  where  she  disposes  of  her  husband's 
property,  whether  held  in  her  right,^  or  in  his  own,* 
v/ith  his  consent,'  while  on  the  other  we  find  a  per- 
fectly valid  will  inoperative  as  to  certain  property,  for 
example,  to  proiierty  which  jiasses  to  her  husband  by 
survivorship.^  It  would  seem  that  when  her  power  to 
will  is  given  by  the  instrument  or  statute  which 
secures  the  property  to  her  separate  use,  she  can  will 
the  whole  of  the  same  and  defeat  tlie  marital  rights  of 
her  husband ;  but  that  Avhen  her  incapacity  to  will  is 
removed  by  statute  generally,  her  will  oi)erates  only  so 
far  as  it  does  not  conflict  with  the  marital  riglits  of  her 
husband.^  In  probating  a  married  woman's  will,  its 
operation  must  bo  limited  to  the  kinds  of  property 
which  it  is  in  her  power  to  dispo.se  of.' 

1  Marston  v.  Norton,  5  N.  H.  205,  211  ;  ante,  §  341. 

2  Willock  V.  Noble,  Law  R.  7  II.  L.  3S0,  603. 

3  Cutter  v.  Butler,  25  N.  H.  343,  :«4,  3.56  ;  .57  Am.  Dec.  330. 

4  Van  Winkle  v.  Schoonmaker,  15  N.  J.  Eq.  384,  386.  | 

5  Lee  V.  Bennett,  31  Miss,  113, 123  ;  poni,  I  ;:J8,  ^^/ 


^    343  AVILLS    OF    MARRIKD    WOMEN.  524 

6  Stroud  1'.  Coiuiellv,  33  Gratu  217,  —1.  Compare  Alsop  r.  Mc- 
Anhur,  76  111.  20,  2i 

7  See  Cooper  r.  McDonald,  7  Ch.  Div.  233,  2yr. ;  Pool  f.  Blakie,  53 
111.  49.1,  .502,  503. 

8  See  Clarke,  79  Pa,  St.  37G,  377  ;  nnle,  {  34.5. 

n  Willock  V.  Xoble.  Law  R.  7  H.  L.  530,  oM,  597  ;  Cutter  v.  Butler, 
2.5  X.  H.  :m,  359;  57  Am.  Dec.  3;». 

I  348.  Effect  of  husband's  consent  to  wife's  will.  —  A 
husband  cannot,  bj'  his  consent,  give  his  wife  any  per- 
sonal ciipacity  to  make  a  wU.1,  for  the  status  of  married 
women  depends  on  the  law  and  not  on  contract ;  ^  the 
most  his  consent  can  do  is  to  enable  her  to  dispose,  bj' 
will,  of  property  belonging  to  him,  in  his  own  right, * 
or  in  her  right,  as  her  husband.'  Therefore,  at  common 
law,  while  a  will  of  jjersonalty  made  by  a  married 
woman,  ■with  her  husband's  consent,  served  to  carry 
the  property  to  the  legatees,*  since  a  wife's  personalty 
vests  absolutely  in  lier  husband  by  marriage,  and  he 
may  do  with  it  as  he  pleases,*  yet  lie  has  no  such  inter- 
est in  her  realty,  and  she  could  not  dispose  of  real 
estate  even  by  a  will  made  with  his  consent,^  this  hav- 
ing no  eflfect  as  agtiinst  the  heir,"  or  even  against  him 
as  to  his  life  interest.^  Of  course  a  different  rule  pre- 
vailed if  his  consent  took  the  form  of  a  power,^  or  of  a 
settlement  of  property  to  the  wife's  equitable  separate 
use.^"  For  a  husband  may,  even  by  his  will,  empower 
his  wife  to  dispose  of  his  property  by  her  will,  and  a 
■will  made  during  coverture  under  sucli  power  is  a  good 
execution  thereof."  So  that  wlien  a  wife  makes  a  Avill 
which  is  valid  by  virtue  of  her  husband's  consent,  she 
makes  it  simply  as  his  agent  ;i-  and  she  must  be 
specially  autliorized  to  make  the  will  in  question,"  a 
general  consent  not  being  sufficient,^*  and  knowledge 
on  the  part  of  the  husband  of  the  contents  of  the  will 
being  necessary.^*  Tlie  assent  may  be  given  during  or 
after  coverture,"'  orally  or  in  ^^-riting,"  and   may  be 


525  AVILLS   OF    MARKIED    WOMEN.  g    348 

proved,  directly  or  indirectly,^*  as,  for  example,  by  tlie 
fact  that  the  will  was  in  his  handwriting ;  ^*  the  usual 
and  proper  mode  is  by  her  assenting  to  tlie  probate  of 
the  will,'-'  Tlie  assent  is  generally  revocable  by  the 
husband,  at  pleasure,  until  probate; 2'  it  is  revoked  by 
his  death,'^  and  he  must,  therefore,  survive  her  to  ren- 
der the  will  good.'^2  The  wUl  must  be  probated,^'  and 
the  husband  should  assent  to  the  probate  ;^^  if  he  does 
so,  he  cannot  afterwards  revoke  his  consent.^^  (It  is 
said,  even,  that  lie  cannot  revoke  any  consent  given 
after  his  wife's  death. ^'j  Cut  he  may  render  liis  assent 
irrevocable  by  a  contract  on  valuable  consideration,-'* 
or  under  seal,"'^  and  he  may  by  his  conduct  estoi)  him- 
self from  denying  his  consent.^o  When  the  will  is 
valid  witliout  tlie  husband's  consent,  by  assenting 
thereto  lie  waives  Iiis  rights  inconsistent  with  the  pro- 
visions of  the  will.^'^  Whetlier  a  statute  which  requires 
the  husband's  consent  to  his  wife's  will  renders  a  will 
made  witliout  such  consent  invalid,  or  simply  inoiiera- 
tive  as  to  tlio  liusband's  interest,"^  must  depend  on  the 
wording  of  tlie  act  itself.^^  Generally,  under  the  stat- 
utes, his  assent  is  not  necessary  for  any  purpose.^* 

1  St.  John,  11  Ves.  Jr.  525,  62D  ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  J  181. 

2  T.po  V.  P.cnnott,  31  Miss.  110, 126  ;  Cutter  v.  Butler,  25  N.  ir.  ?,::\, 
:{.-)«;  .-)7  Am.  Dec.  :i:  0  ;  Van  Winkle  v.  Sc-liDOimiiiker,  15  N.  J.  Eq.  SS-1, 
3S0  ;  Thoniilike  v.  UcynoUls,  22  Gratt.  21,  2i). 

3  Osgood  V.  Breed,  12  Mass.  525,  532 ;  infra,  n.  4. 

4  Lloyd  V.  irodsden,  2  Bro.  C.  C.  S.'M,  543,  544  ;  Stevens  v.  Bagwell, 
15  Ves.  V>i>  ;  Adams  v.  Kidlogg,  KUby,  IJo,  I'.iii  ;  1  Am.  IJi-c.  1» ;  Kcuv, 
31  I..  .1.  l>r(jl).  i:,l  :  4  Swab.  &  i'.  21."),  217  ;  l.saacs,  31  L.  J.  I'rob.  1.58,  15J  ; 
Maas  1'.  SlicUiclil,  1  Kob.  3G4;  10  Jur.  417,418;  Noble  v.  Willock,  Law 
K.  8  Ch.  178,  18'.t,  190;  S.  C.  Law  H.  7  H.  L.  580,  5!)0 ;  Stoadmaii  v. 
Powell,  1  Addis.  58  ;  Fane,  16  Sim.  40G ;  Picqiiet  v.  Swan,  4  Mu.son,  4 li, 
4(il  ;  George  v.  Bussing,  15  Moii.  B.  5:i8,  5(i  J ;  Osgood  v.  Breed,  12  Mas.s. 
5.I."),  532;  Lee  v.  Bcunett.Sl  Miss.  11!),  126;  C.ii.'i  v.  Bunkley,  35  Mi.ss. 
1!!),  145;  Cutter  v.  Butler,  25  N.  II.  .343,  3.J4-3.",7  ;  57  Am.  Dec.  330; 
S.udM)rii  r.  Batelielder,  51  N.  H.  42fi,  431 ;  Marston  v.  Norton,  5  N.  H. 
20.-),  211);  Van  Winkle  v.  Schoonmuker,  15  N.  J.  Kq.  384,  3,80  ;  Bradish 
r,  Gibbs,  3  .lohns.  Ch.  323,  510;  Ni^wliii  ?'.  Freeman,  1  Ired.  514,  .520 ; 
Barnes  V.  Irwin,  2  Lall.  l!i!i,  2(d  ;  1  Am.  J)i'c.  278  ;  SiuL'lie  v.  Hevnokls, 
2  jAs  lu.s.  Eq.  66,  77 ;  West,  3  Baud.  373,  375  ;  Morton  v.  Onion',  45  Vt. 
14&,  153. 


g   349  WILLS   OF   MARRIED   WOMEX.  526 

5    Discussed  ante,  U  163-183. 

S  Adams  )'.  Kellogg,  Kirby,  in5,  196;  1  Am.  Dec.  18  ;  Baker  r. 
Chastang,  18  Ala.  417, -lis ;  Lee  n.  Bennett,  31  Miss.  119,  126;  Sanborn 
V.  Batchelfier,  57  N.  H.  426,  431 ;  Marston  v.  Norton,  5  N.  H.  205,  210  ; 
Newlin  v.  Freeman,  1  Ired.  614, 520. 

7  Wagner,  2  Ashm.  445, 453. 

8  This  is  assumed  in  cases  «uprffl,  n.  6. 

9  West,  10  Serg.  &  R.  445,  447  ;  ante,  |  342. 

10  Cutter  V.  Butler,  25  N.  H.  343, 353 ;  57  Am.  Dec.  330  ;  ante,  ?  344. 

11  Thorndike  v.  Reynolds,  22  Gratt.  21,  29. 

12  Consult  a)i^e,  ?  342. 

13  Cutter  v.  Butler,  25  N.  H.  343,  .357  ;  57  Am.  Dec.  330  ;  infra,  n.  14. 

14  Rex  V.  Betlesworth,  2  Strang*,  891  ;  Willock  i'.  Noble,  Law  R. 
7  H.  L.  580,  5H7  ;  George  v.  Bussing,  15  Men.  B.  558,  563 ;  Jones  r. 
Brown,  :54  N.  II.  439,  440;  Cutter  r.  Butler,  25  N.  H.  343,  351 ;  57  Am. 
Dec.  3:«  ;  Kurtz  v.  Saylor,  20  Pa.  St.  205,  209. 

15  Willock  V.  Noble,  Law  R.  7  H.  L.  580,  590. 

16  Van  Winkle  t'.  Sclioonmaker,  15  N.  J.  Eq.  384, 386. 

17  Reed  v.  Blaisdell,  16  N.  H.  194,  202 ;  41  Am.  Dec.  722  ;  snprn,  n.  16. 

18  Van  Winkle  r.  Schoonmaker,  15  N.  J.  Eq.  384,  386 ;  Cutter  v. 
Butler,  25  N.  H.  351,  357  ;  57  Am.  Dec.  330. 

19  Grimke,  1  Desaus.  Eq.  366,  381. 

20  West,  3  Rand.  373,  375  ;  infra,  notes  25,  26. 

21  Adams  ?'.  Kellogg,  Kirby,  195,  197;  1  Am.  Dec.  18;  George  v. 
Bussing,  15  Mon.  B.  558,  563  ;  Van  Winkle  v.  Sclioonmaker,  15  N.  J. 
Eq.  384,  387. 

22  Noble  v.  Willock,  Law  R.  8  Ch.  778,  789,  790. 

23  Willock  V.  Noble,  Law  R.  7  H.  L.  580,  591,  597  ;  1  Redf.  Wills,  25. 

24  Schull  V.  Murray,  32  Md.  9,  16  ;  ante,  ?  342. 

25  George  v.  Bussing,  15  Mon.  B.  558,  563  ;  Lee  v.  Bennett,  31  Miss. 
119,  126  ;  West,  3  Rand.  373,  375. 

26  Lloyd  V.  Hodsden.  2  Bro.  C.  C.  534,  543  ;  Fane,  16  Sim.  406  ;  Maas 
V.  Sheffield,  I  Rob.  -.HH  ;  10  Jur.  417, 418  ;  Van  Winkle  v.  Schoonmaker, 
15  N.  J.  Eq.  384,  388  ;  Wagner,  2  Ashm.  448,  4.53. 

27  Cutter  v.  Butler,  25  N.  H.  343,  3.57,  358 ;  57  Am.  Dec.  3.30. 

28  Lloyd  V.  Hodsden,  2  Bro.  C.  C.  534,  543,  544;  Van  Winkle  v. 
Schoonmaker,  15  N.  J.  Eq.  3.84,  .386. 

29  Fisher  v.  Kimball,  17  Vt.  323,  328. 

30  Van  Winkle  v.  Schoonmaker,  15  N.  J.  Eq.  384,  388. 

31  George  v.  Bussing,  15  Mon.  B.  .5.58,  563 ;  Beal  v.  Storm,  26  N.  J. 
Eq.  373,  378  ;  McBride,  81  Pa.  St.  .303,  306. 

32  As  to  this  distinction  see  ante,  \  347. 

33  Compare  Schley  v.  McCeney,  36  Md.  267,  273,  and  Vreeland  v. 
Ryno,  26  N.  J.  Eq.  160,  162. 

34  rrquhartt'.  Oliver,  56  Ga.  314,  346;  an«e,  ?J  34.5,  346. 

g  349.  Mutual  wills  between  husband  and  wife. — There 
is  nothing  to  prevent  a  husband  willing  liis  property 


527  WILLS  OF  MAREIED  WOMEN.  ?  350 

to  his  wifc,i  and  if  a  married  woman  can  make  a  will 
at  all,  there  is  generally  nothing  to  prevent  her  making 
a  will  in  favor  of  her  husband.^'  It  has  been  held  thai, 
under  a  statute  providing  that  tlie  will  of  a  wife  should 
not  affect  the  interest  in  her  property  of  her  husband, 
she  could  not  make  a  will  to  him,^  and  that  a  general 
act  empowering  her  to  will  did  not  authorize  wilLs  to 
her  husband;^  but  as  the  unity  of  husband  and  wife 
has  ceased  when  the  will  takes  eflect,  tlie  same  reasons 
which  render  contracts  between  liusband  and  wife  in- 
valid do  not  prevail,  and  this  construction  of  statutes  is 
hardly  reasonable  ;'  and  a  wife  can  will  to  her  husband 
under  a  power,^  or  as  respects  her  equitable  separate 
estate.^  So  joint  and  mutual  Avills  of  husband  and  wife 
are  valid,*  But  either  husband^  or  wife'*  may  put  his 
wife  or  her  husband  to  an  election  to  take  under  the 
will  or  under  the  law ;  and  in  many  States  there  are 
statutes  expressly  referring  to  wilLs  between  husband 
and  wife."  A  statute  cannot,  after  the  deatii  of  one 
of  the  parties,  rectify  a  mistake  whereby  in  mutual 
wills  the  husband  signed  the  wife's,  and  the  wife  the 
husband's.*^ 

1  Enrdeno  v.  Ampersp*  14  MJch.  !)0,  03 ;  ante,  i  50, 

2  See  Morse  v.  Thompson,  4  Cn«h,  562,  567  ;  aiite,  ?  oO, 

3  Morse  v.  Thompson,  4  Cu8h.  562,565. 

4  Wakefield  v.  Phelps,  37  N.  K.  295, 305  ;  nnle,  ?  50. 

5  Burdeno  v.  Amperse,  14  Mich,  90,  93;  Morse  v.  Thompson,  4 
Cnsh.  562,  .-.67, 

6  Bradish  v.  Gibbs,  3  John*.  Ch,  523  535 ;  ante,  i  342. 

7  Burton  v.  Holly,  13  Ala.  408,  411, 412  ;  ante,  i  344. 

8  Wyche  v.  Clapp,  43  Tex.  543, 543,  549, 

9  See  nnte,  ^?  273,  275, 

10  See  Huston  v.  Cone,  24  Ohio  St,  20  ;  Clarke,  79  Pa.  St.  376, 

11  See  Ames,  33  La.  An,  1317, 1329  ;  ante,  i  50. 

12  Alter,  G7  Pa,  St,  341, 345  ;  5  Am,  Kep.  433 ;  ante,  ?  23, 

g  350.    Gifts    causa    mortis    of  married  women.  —  The 
principles  applicable  to  wills  of  naarried  women  seem 


l^  G51-352  WILLS  OP  MARRIED  WOMEN.  528 

generally  applicable  to  their  gifts  causa  mortis.^  A  wife 
may  make  a  donatio  mortis  causa  of  her  equitable  sep- 
aiate  estate,^  or  of  any  of  her  personalty  with  her  hus- 
band's consent,^  and  she  may  make  such  a  gift  to  her 
husband  himself.*  But  she  cannot,  of  course,  give 
away  what  she  has  previously  disposed  of.^ 

1  Jones  V.  Brown,  34  N.  H.  439,  446. 

2  Kilby  v.  Godwin,  2  Del.  Ch.  61,  71. 

3  Jones  v.  Brown,  34  N.  H.  439,  446. 

4  Caldwell?'.  Renlew,  33  Vt.  213,' 2\9.  ' 

5  Lawrence  t».  Bartlett,  7  Allen,  36,  38.    ' 

^351.  Revocation  of  will  by  married  woman.: — The 
same  capacity  is  required  to  revoke  a  will  as  to  execute 
it,'  and  it  is  because  a  married  woman  cannot  revoke  a 
will  at  common  law  that  marriage  itself  works  a  revo- 
cation.^  Any  valid  will  made  during  coverture  re- 
vokes all  other  wills,  so  far  as  they  are  inconsistent 
with  it.'    If  she  may  make,  a  will  she  may  revoke  one.* 

1  Mosser,  32  Ala.  551,  556. 

2  Morton  i\  Onion,  45  Vt.  145,  153  ;  post,  i  352. 

3  Hawksley  v.  Barrow,  Law  B.  1  Pro.  cfe  D.  147, 152. 

4  Mosser,  32  Ala.  551,  556. 

§  352.  Wills  of  married  women  made  before  marriage.  — 
A  will  made  before  marriage  by  a  woman  was  at  com- 
mon law  revoked  by  her  marriage.'  This  rule  has 
been  said  to  rest  on  the  following  grounds  :  (1)  Tliat  as 
slie  could  not  make  a  will  during  coverture,  her  ante- 
nuptial will  ceased  on  maiTiage  to  be  ambulatory ,3 
w^hich  is  contrary  to  the  nature  of  wills.*  (2)  That  by 
marriage  her  jiower  to  dis^wse  of  her  property  was 
taken  away,^  and  her  husband's  rights  attaciied  by 
operation  of  law.*  (3)  That  marriage  worked  so  great  a 
change  in  her  condition  that  the  law  would  presume 
that  she  had  not  meant  her  will  to  oiDerate  in  case  of 
her  marriage.^    Whatever  the  grounds  were,  there  was 


529  WILLS   OF    MARRIED    W03IEN.  ^    352 

no  question  at  coininon  law  but  that  her  will  was  re- 
voked;  but  whether  modern  statutes,  securing  to  her 
her  separate  property'  or  authorizing  her  to  dispose  of 
her  property  by  will,  indirectly  repeal  this  rule  is  dis- 
puted.^  On  the  one  hand,  it  is  said  that  by  these  stat- 
utes her  will  is  no  longer  ambulator}',^  and  her  rights 
to  her  jjropei'ty  are  full,'"  and  that  therefore  the  reasons 
for  the  rule  at  common  law  are  gone  and  the  rule  must 
go  also ;  ^^  that  marriage  alone  does  not  work  a  revo- 
cation, because  it  docs  not  do  so  in  the  case  of  a  man ; 
and  that  a  will  is  revoked  only  by  marriage  and  birth 
of  issue. '^  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  said  that  it  is  per- 
fectly consistent  with  the  legislative  intent  in  passing 
these  statutes  that  antenuptial  wills  should  be  gov- 
erned by  the  previous  rule  ;*^  and  that  the  rule  that  a 
will  is  not  revoked  by  marriage  alone,  but  only  by  mar- 
riage and  birth  of  issue,  is  not  a  reasonable  one,  and 
should  not  be  applied  to  married  women  unless  ex- 
pressly adopted  by  statute. i*  In  many  States  the  rule 
that  marriage  alone  revokes  anj'  will  is  adopted  by 
statute,'^  and  where  this  rule  was  adopted  bj^  statute 
only  as  to  married  women,  statutes  afterwards  passed 
increasing  the  powers  and  capacity  of  married  women 
do  not  repeal  it.'^  The  rule  at  common  law  apijlied  to 
cases  where  the  wife  survived  her  husband,'"  but  not  to 
wills  made  under  and  bj'  virtue  of  a  power.'^ 

1  Forse  V.  Hembling,  4  Rep.  fiO,  Bl  ;  Douglas  v.  Cooper,  3  Mylne 
<fe  K.  378,  481  ;  Hodsdeii  v.  Lloyd,  2  Bro.  C.  C.  540,  544  ;  2  Term,  0.'<4  ; 
Cotter  j>.  Laver,  2  P.  Wms.  623,  624  ;  TuIIlt,  79  111.  99,  10]  ;  Swan  v. 
Hammond,  Mass.  S.  C.  18.H4  ;  19  Cent.  L.  J.  43L  432  ;  Noyes  i:  South- 
worth,  Mich.  .S.  C.  Oct.  1SS4 ;  20  N.  W.  Rep.  891  ;  19  Cent.  L.  J.  432  ; 
Ganetti'.  Dabney,  27  Miss.  335,  342;  Allen  )'.  Fellows,  N.  H.  ISiH  ; 
Compton  I'.  Pierson,  2s  >,'.  J.  Eq.  229,  230,  231  ;  Brown  v.  Clark,  77 
N.  Y.  369,  473  ;  Loomis,  51  Barb.  2.57  ;  Wood  v.  Bullock,  3  Hawks,  298, 
300;  Kurtz  v.  Savior,  20  Pa.  St.  205,  209;  Davis,  1  Tuck.  107;  Morton 
V.  Onion,  45  Vt.  145,  153  ;  Carey,  49  Vt.  236. 

2  Discu.ssed  ante,  I  341. 

3  Hodsden  i-.  Llovd,  2  Bro.  C.  C.  540,  544 ;  Noyes  %\  Southworth,  20 
N.  W.  Rep.  891  ;  19  Cent.  L.  J.  432  ;  TuUer,  79  111.  99,  101  ;  infra,  n.  5. 

4  Tu  Her,  79  111.  99, 101. 

H.  &  W.  — 45. 


g  353  WILLS  OP   MARRIKD  WOMEN.  530 

5    Morton  v.  Onion,  •l.i  Vt.  1-15, 153  ;  stiprct,  n.  3. 
5    Discussed  antf,  H  H1-1S3. 

7  Brown  r.  Clark,  77  X.  Y.  300,373,374;  Swan  v.  Hammond,  19 
Cent.  L.  J.  431,  43i    See  TuUer,  79  111.  99,  loi 

8  See  pro,  Tuller,  79  111.  99, 101, 103  ;  Xoyes  v.  Southworth,  supra, 
n.  1  ;  Allen  v.  Fellows,  .?»;)»•((,  n.  1  ;  Morton  v.  Onion,  4")  Vt.  14S,  l.'i3. 
See  roiitrn.  Swan  v.  llaninioud,  sKpm,  n.  1 ;  Brown  v.  Clark, 77  N.  Y. 
3(iil,  :!73,  374. 

9  Jfurton  )•.  Onion,  45  Vt.  145, 153 ;  supra,  n.  3. 

10  TuIIer,  79  111.  99, 101  ;  ante,  ?J  217-24.3. 

1 1  Xoyes  V.  Soutlrvorth,  supra,  n.  1 ;  cases  cited  pro,  stipra,  n.  8, 

12  Tuller,  79  111.  99, 103,  ia5  ;  Tyler,  19  111.  l.'l ;  supra,  n.  11. 

13  Swan  r\  Hammond,  .vimra,  ii.  1 ;  Brown  v.  Clark,  77  N.  Y.  369, 
374. 

14  .Swan  v.  Hammond,  supra,  n,  1. 

15  See  19  Cent.  L.  J.  4."2. 

16  Brown  v.  Clark,  77  X.  Y.  369,  373,  374  ;  Loomis,  51  Barb.  2.')7,  259. 

17  Cotter  t».  Layer,  2  P.  Wms.  623,  624  ;  Garrett  t'.  Dabney,  27  Miss. 
XiT),  ;w;j. 

18  Logan  »'.  Bell,  1  Com.  B.  873,  8sfi ;  Noves  v.  South  worth,  20  X.  \V, 
Rep.  891.    Compare  Hodsden  v.  Lloyd,  2  Bro.  C.  C.  640,  544. 

^  353.  Bepublication  of  married  women's  wills  after  dis- 
solution of  marriage. — A  \\  ill  inado  before  marriage  and 
revoked  )jy  marriage  is  not  re\ived  by  the  death  of 
the  luisband,  but  mn.st  be  republished.'  A  valid  will 
made  during  coverture  remains  valid,  and  docs  not 
have  to  be  republislied  when  the  marriage  is  di-ssolved.^ 
An  invalid  will  made  during  coverture  does  not  become 
valid  when  the  husband  dies;'  the  widow's  intention 
to  adhere  thereto  will  not  .suffice;*  nothing  can  give  it 
efficac3' .save  a  republication.^  A  reiniblicalion  raioans 
a  re-execution,  with  all  the  formtxlities  required  by  law.* 
A  codicil  duly  executed  is  a  rei)ublication.'  The  deliv- 
ery l)y  a  widow  of  a  will  executed  during  coverture  has 
l)een  held  to  make  a  valid  will.*  The  death  of  the  hus- 
band revokes  a  will  made  with  his  consent  at  common 
law. 9 

1  Cotter  V.  Layer,  2  P.  Wms.  623, 624  ;  Oarrett  v.  Pabney,  27  Miss, 
335,  343  ;  ante,  i  VyX     CouMt,  Wood  v.  Bullock,  3  lluwks,  298. 300. 

2  Thorndike  v  Reynolds,  22  Gratt.  21,  32. 

3  Osgoo<l  i'.  Breed,  12  JIass,  525,  SCO. 


531  WILLS   OF   MARRIED   WOMEN.  g    354 

4  Willock  V.  Noble,  Law  R.  7  H.  L.  580,  591. 

5  Osgood  V.  Breed,  12  Mass.  525,  5^0. 

6  Willock  V.  Noble,  Law  R.  7  H.  L.  580,  597. 

7  Kurtz /•.  Saylor,  20  Pa.  St  205,20,% 

8  Miller  v.  Brown,  2  Hagg.  Ecc.  20.1. 

9  Noble  I'.  Willock,  Law  R.  8  Ch.  778,  789,  790  ;  ante,  §  348. 

I  354.  Conflict  of  laws  as  to  wills.  — Wills  of  real  es- 
tate are  governed  ijy  the  law  of  the  State  where  the 
lands  lie,  wills  of  personalty  by  the  law  of  the  testator's 
domicile.^  The  validity  and  effect  of  the  will  of  a  mar- 
ried woman  depends  on  the  law  which  exists  at  the 
time  of  her  death, ^  though  its  validity  had  been  held  to 
depend  on  the  law  existing  at  the  time  of  its  execution.^ 

1  1  Jurman  Wills,  ch.  1  ;  ante,  U  30-36. 

2  W'akefield  v.  Phelps,  37  N.  H.  295,  306 ;  ante,  ?  36. 

3  Kurt/.  V.  Saylor,  20  Pa.  St.  205,  209  ;  ante,  1 :36 


1}    355-356  GENERAL   PRINCIPLES.  532 

CHAPTER   XXI. 

CONTRACTS   OF   MARRIED   WOMEN. 

Art.  I.    The  General  Principles,  H  355-36S. 

II.     Effect  op  Statutes,  Generally,  H  369-878. 
III.    Special  Kinds  of  Contracts,  g§  379-393. 

Article  I.  —  The  General  Principles. 

\  355.  The  word  "  contract "  deflned  and  explained. 

I  3.J6.  Law  of  contracts  as  aflfected  by  coverture. 

?  ST)".  Contracts  of  married  women  at  common  law,  generally. 

I  353.  Contracts  of  married  women  at  common  law,  exceptions. 

I  359  Contracts  of  married  women  in  equity. 

I  360.  Contracts  charging  equitable  separate  property. 

\  SOI.  Contracts  of  married  women  under  statutes. 

I  332.  Contracts  charging  statutory  separate  property. 

I  333.  Contracts  of  married  women  as  agents. 

J  364.  Contracts  of  married  women  through  agents. 

§  335.  Contracts  of  married  women  made  before  marriage. 

I  356.  Contracts  of  married  wonion  confirmed  after  coverture. 

I  367.  Contracts  between  husband  and  wife. 

\  368.  Invalid  contracts,  whether  void  or  voidable. 

I  355.  The  word  "contract"  defined  and  explained. — 
Tlio  ■word  "contract,"  as  used  in  this  chajiter,  must 
bo  taken  to  cover  any  transaction  between  consenting 
parties.  It  includes  executory  contracts,  mere  prom- 
ises, and  executed  contracts,  such  as  deeds,  express 
and  implied  agreements,  and  contracts  in  personam, 
I):nding  iiersonally,  and  contracts  in  rem,  binding  on 
l)roperty.  In  this  chapter  the  general  rules  relating  to 
all  contracts  of  married  women,  and  especially  execu- 
tory contracts,  are  discussed ;  in  the  next,  deeds  of 
married  women  are  separately  considered. 

^  353.  Law  of  contracts  as  affected  by  law  of  marriod 
women.  —  The  law  of  contracts  requires  that  there  shall 


533  GENERAL,    PRINCIPLES,  ?    357 

be  two  parties  at  least  to  every  contract,'  and  that  the 
parties  shall  be  cajjable  of  giving  tlieir  consent.-  In  the 
first  of  these  rules,  since  at  common  law  husbanfi  and 
wife  are  one  person,^  lies  the  main  reason  for  the  inva- 
lidity of  contracts  between  husband  and  wife ;  *  in  the 
second,  since  a  wife  is  said  at  common  law  to  have  no 
will  of  her  own,  but  to  be  under  the  power  and  control 
of  the  husband,^  lies  the  reason  for  the  invalidity  of  all 
contracts  of  married  women.^  As  the  unity  of  husband 
and  wife  has  been  gradually  encroached  upon  in  equity 
and  by  statute,  and  as  tlie  disabilities  of  married  women 
have  been  gradually  directly  and  indirectly  removed, 
the  number  of  contracts  which  a  married  woman  can 
make  has  been  gradually  growing.  But  so  blind  has 
been  legislation,  and  ao  inconsistent  have  been  decis- 
ions, that  the  present  state  of  the  law  of  contracts  of 
married  women  is  most  confused. 

1  Scarborough  i<.  Watkins,  9  Moii.  B.  540,  5i  j ;  50  Am.  Dec.  528. 

2  Anson  Contracts,  p.  9G. 

3  Discussed  ante,  H  39,  et  seq. 

i    White  V.  Wager,  25  N.  Y.  ."is,  329  ;  ante,  U  40-16. 

5  Burleigh  v.  CotRn,  22  N.  II.  118,  124  ;  52  Am.  Dec.  2nr. ;  ante,  I  "SI  ; 
2>ost,  'i  "5(). 

6  Martin  v.  Dwelly,  6  Wend.  S,  12, 13;  21  Am.  Dec.  245;  xxist,  I  058. 

I  357.  Contracts  of  marriod  women  at  common  law,  gon- 
erallj.  —  At  ct)miiiun  law,  generally,  aii  contracts,  agree- 
ments, covenants,  promises,'  and  ref)resentations '■'  of 
married  women  were  absolutely  null  and  void,^  at  la-.v 
and  in  equity.*  Tlie  grounds  of  their  invalidity  wcio 
that  a  married  woman  had  no  legal  existence,  being 
merged  in  her  husband  ;5  that  she  had  no  separate 
existence;^  and  that  she  had  no  consenting  capacity, 
as  she  was  under  the  power  and  con:;rol  of  her  hu3- 
band,  and  his  wish  was  her  law.^  The  common-law 
rule,  altliough  for  the  greater  part  done  away  with  by 
equity  and  statutes,  still  so  far  exists  that  any  capacity 


g    358  GENKRAL    PRINCIPLES.  534 

of  a  married  woman  to  contract  is  regardeu  as  excep- 
tional, and  tlie  grounds  thereof  must  be  alleged  and 
proved  by  one  setting  it  up.*  Married  women  are  still 
prima  facie  unable  to  contract  at  all.^ 

1  Norris  V.  Lantz,  18  Md.  260,  26r) ;  Martin  v.  Dwelly,  6  Wetul.  0,  r2  ; 
21  Am.  Dec.  24.5.  See  Butler  v.  Buckingham,  .5  Day,  492,  .50,  ;  5  Am. 
Dec.  174  ;  Patterson  v.  Lawrence,  90  111.  174,  179  :  Kodemeyer  r.  Rod- 
man, 5  Iowa,  42*),  427;  Haggertv  v.  C'orri,  .5  La.  An.  4H:!;  Pond  v. 
Carpenter,  12  Minn.  4:«,  4S1\  Davis  p.  Frv,  1.5  Miss.  fi4,  67;  Waul  v. 
Kirkman,  25  Miss.  601,  619 ;  Davis  v.  Smith,  75  Mo.  219,225;  Sprover 
V.  Nickell,  .5.5  Mo.  2fi4,  267;  Danner  r.  Berthold,  11  Mo.  App. .«!,  .3.5S, 
.^59;  Franklin  r\  Beatty,  14  X.  J.  F.q.  462,  466  ;  Kelso  v.  Tabor,  .52  Barb. 
125,128;  fSroene  v.  Frondhof,  1  Disn.  .504,  .505  ;  Glidden  v.  Simpler,  52 
Pa.  St.  400,  404  ;  Farrar  v.  Bessey,  24  Vt.  89,  93. 

2  Keen  v.  Coleman,  39  Pa.  St.  299,  302  ;  Wilson  v.  Fuller,  60  How. 
Pr.  480,  481.  No  estoppel :  Danner  v.  Berthold,  11  Mo.  App.  3.51,  3.58, 
359  ;  post,  i\  368,  41.5. 

3  Neef  r.  Redmon,  76  Mo.  195, 197 ;  post,  ?  368. 

4  Pond  V.  Carpenter,  12  Minn.  430,  432  ;  post,  ?  35n. 

5  Rodemeyer  v.  Rodman,  5  Iowa,  426,  427 ;  ante,  ??  39,  331. 

6  Kelso  V.  Tabor,  52  Barb.  125,  128  ;  ante,  ?  39. 

7  Sandford  r.  McLean,  3  Paigp,  117,  122  ;  23  Am.  Dec.  773;  Martin 
V.  Dwelly,  6  Wend.  9. 12  ;  21  Am.  Dec.  245. 

8  Hinkson  v.  Williams,  41  N.  J.  Eq.  35,  37.  S.  P.,  Stilhvell  r. 
Adams,  29  Ark.  346;  Way  v.  Peck,  47  Conn.  23;  Tracv  r.  Keitli,  U 
Allen,  214,215;  West  r.  Larawav,  2S  Mi"h.  464,467;  Pollen  ?•.  .lames, 
4.5  Miss.  129,  13;i ;  Lewis  v.  Perkins,  36  N.  .1.  L.  133  ;  Nash  v.  Mitchell, 
71  N.  Y.  199. 

9  Rodemeyer  v.  Rodman,  .5  Iowa,  426,  428. 

I  338.  Contracts  of  married  women  at  common  law, 
exceptions.  —  Under  certain  circumstances  at  common 
law  married  women  had  the  capacities  of  unmarried 
women, 1  and  could  therefore  contract  as  femincs  sole,^ 
Tliis  was  the  case  when  the  husband  was  an  alien  re- 
siding abroad,'  or  when  he  had  been  banished,*  or  liad 
abjured  the  realm,^  or  was  civilh'  dead.*  In  tlie  United 
States  a  permanent  departure  from  the  State,  and  re- 
nunciation of  his  married  rights  hj  a  hu.sband,  invests 
his  wife  with  tlie  capacities  of  a  femme  sole,''  though 
whether  under  such  circumstances  she  can  make  a 
valid  deed  seems  to  be  disputed.^  Though  in  Texas 
mere  separation  if  permanent  is  sufficient  to  produce 
this  result,^  the  true  rule  seems  to  be  that  neither  de- 


535  GENERAL   PRINCIPLES.  g    359 

parture  from  the  State  alone,'*  nor  sei^aration  alone, '^  is 
sutlicient ;  but  the  husband  must  have  both  renounced 
his  marital  rights  and  put  himself  permanentlj'  beyond 
the  process  of  the  courts  of  the  State.'-  The  elfect  of  a 
divorce  a  mcnsa  et  thoro  is  ditferent  in  different  States.'* 
A  married  woman  may  also,  as  agent,"  under  a  power, '^ 
and  in  representative  cai^acities,'^  contract  as  a  femme 
sole. 

1  Discussed  ante,  I't  332-336. 

2  Wiirthingtoii  y.  Cooke,  52  Md.  297,  307;  Bean  ;•.  Morgan,  4  Mc- 
Cord,  US. 

3  Gallagher  v.  Delargy,  57  Mo.  29,  37. 

4  Rhea  v.  Renner,  1  Peters,  105,  107  ;  Stewart  M.  <fe  D.  ?  177. 

5  Musick  V.  Dobson,  76  Mo.  624,  628  ;  43  Xm.  Rep.  "SO. 

6  Worthington  v.  Cooke,  52  Md.  297,  300 ;  ante,  i  XM. 

7  Muslek  V.  Dobson,  76  Mo.  624,  62s  ;  43  .\m.  Rep.  780  ;  Danner  ?-. 
Berthold,  11  Mo.  App.  ;151,  :Jo5  ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  J  177  ;  ante,  i  332. 

8  Pro,  Gallagher  v.  Delargy,  57  Mo.  29,  37  ;  Danner  v.  Berthold,  11 
Mo.  App.  351,  ;555.  Contra,  Rhea  v.  Rhenner,  1  Peters,  105, 107  ;  Beck- 
man  v.  Stanley,  8  Nev.  257,  261. 

9  Davis  V.  Saladee,  57  Tex.  326,  327. 

10  Rogers  v.  Phillips,  8  Ark.  366  ;  47  -\m.  Dec.  727. 

11  High  V.  Worley,  33  Ala.  196  ;  Chouteau  i'.  Merry,  3  Mo.  254  ; 
Harris  v.  Taylor.  3  Sueed,  536,  53S. 

12  Danner  v.  Berthold,  11  Mo.  App.  351,  355. 

13  Discussed  ante,  ?  333  ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  i  449. 

14  Discussed  ante,  §?  89,  98  ;  post,  i  363.  ^ 

15  Martin  v.  Dwelly,  6  Wend.  9,  12  ;  21  Am.  Dec.  215  ;  post,  J  363. 

16  Post,  ii4S-2-4i7. 

§  359.  Contracts  of  married  women  in  equity.  —  Inde- 
pendently of  statute,  a  married  woman's  personal  con- 
tracts are  no  more  binding  in  equitj'  than  thej'  are  at 
law ; '  as  to  her  person  and  her  general  proi^erty  her 
contracts  are  absolutely  void,^  so  that  even  her  deed,  if 
not  i^ropeiiy  executed  at  law,  cannot  be  reformed,  cor- 
rected, or  enforced  in  equity .^  But  equity  recognizes 
the  sei^arate  property  and  existence  of  married  women, 
and,  in  most  States,  a  wife  is  with  respect  to  such  prop- 
erty treated  as  a  femme  sole,*  and  her  contracts  relating 
to  the  latter  are  enforced  in  a  proceeding  in  rem.''    It 


?    359  GEXKRAL   PRINCIPLKS.  536 

has  been  said  tliat  equity  has  an  additional  jurisdiction 
to  prevent  frauds  by  married  women  ; ''  and  a  mortgage 
which  the  mortgagor,  a  married  woman,  liad  no  power 
to  jnake,  has  been  sustained  in  equity,  wlien  it  was 
given  to  secure  tlie  purcliase  money  of  property  which 
llie  woman  occupied  and  enjoyed,  in  order  to  prevent 
injustice;'  and  so  has  a  married  woman's  deed,  she 
liaving  received  the  i:)urchase  money,  the  deed  liaving 
been  executed  after  slie  had  obtained  a  divorce  wliicli 
was  supposed  valid,  wliile  in  fact  void  ;^  andecpiity  lias 
even  enjoined  her  from  recoAcring  property  wliich  liad 
passed  out  of  lier  jx)ssession  by  an  invalid  assignment, 
when  in  good  conscience  she  should  not  recover  it  ;' 
but  all  these  cases  are  excei>tional,  a  married  woman  not 
being  estopped  generally  in  equity  even,"^  and  the  rule 
jis  above  stated  is  well  settled."  E({uity  will  not  compel  a 
married  woman  to  join  in  her  luisljand's  deed  according 
to  liis  covenant.'*  But  husband  and  wife  art*  not  one  i>cr- 
son  in  equity,  and  can  to  some  extent  contract  together.'^ 

1  Viiiigluiii  V.  Vniidprstcgfii,  2  Drfw.  1(>5,  ISO;  "MillPr  f.  Xewton. 
23  Cal.  .Vh4,  iVH  ;  Butler  i:  Biukiiighiim.  5  Day, 4;r2, 301  ;  5  Am.  Dec.  174  ; 
Hodges  I-.  I'rJti?,  IS  Flu.  M1,.U4;  Patterson  )•.  r^iwrciice.iiO  III.  17-1, 
17!);  ;f2Am.  I)e<-.  ;"2  ;  |{(Kremeyer  »•.  Koflnian,  .■>  Iowa,  4'.I(i. +27  ;  Xorris 
r.  I.antz,  IS  M<l.  2fiO,  2r.:i ;  Jeniie  r.  Marble,  :r7  MSoh.  Sli.  :«l :  IxKtmis  r. 
Brush.  :«•  Mich. -JO, -16  ;  Davis?.  Smith, 7"i  Mo.  21(1,  22J,  22-> ;  Boatmen 
r.  Collins,  75  Mo.  2sO,  2S1  ;  White  r.  Wager,  25  N.  Y  32S,  SU. 

2  Roilemeyer  v.  Rodman,  .■>  Iowa,  -l^fi,  -127  ;  Davis  v.  Smith,  7->  Mo. 

■i    Loomis  1-.  Brush,  ■'£  Mich.  -:0,  -Ifi ;  prut,  {  .'ifiS. 

-1    Rodemeyer  v.  Rodman,  5  lown,  -rX,  427  ;  ant)!,  ?  20:5. 

r,    Pawley  v.  Vogel,  41  Mo.  2nl,  302  ;  mUe,  \\  20O-20K. 

G    Cahill  r.  Martin,  7  Irisli  Law  Rep.  :{r.l, 37J. 

7  Gl:uss  V.  WarwicU,  -10  P.i,  .SL  HO,  H».  See  contra,  Kiley  v.  I'ierce, 
.V)  A  la.  !W. 

S    Reis  >•.  I,awrence,  («  Cal.  129,  i:io  ;  :«  Am.  Kep.  762. 

!»    Patterson  v.  Lawrence,  90111. 17-1, 17);  :«  Am.  Dec.  22;  Pilcherr.  I 
Smith,  2  Head,  20S,  211. 

10  See  Woo  I  I'.  Terrv,  m  A  rk.  SS.i,  ."W{ :  Oglesbv  v,  Pasco,  79  III.  16t.  I 
170  :  tilid.len  r.  Simpler,  52  Pa.  St.  -JOfl,  401  ;  po*^  \l  400-420. 

11  Daniier  v.  Berthold,  11  Mo.  App.  3.J1,  S.>S. 

12  Young  V.  Paul,  10  X.  J.  Eq.  401,  40IM1I. 
IS    Morrison  i-.  Thistle,  67  Mo.  576, 601  ;  ante.  {  42  ;  jnjgt,  I  367. 


537  tiKNKH.vr,  PRixciPLKs.  ^2  360-363 

^  360.    Contracts  charging  equitable  separate  property. 

—  Tlie  hiw  of  charges  of  equitable  separate  property  in 
equity  lias  already  been  discussed.'  Contracts  which 
are  valid  as  such  charges  are  enforced  in  a  proceeding 
in  rem,'^  and  are  not  binding  on  the  married  woman 
I)ersonally.^ 

1  Aiile,  I't  207,  208. 

2  Vaughan  i-.  Vanderstegen,  2  Drew.  16.5,  IS4  ;  Worlhingtoii  v. 
Cooko,  52  Md.  2!t7,  308  ;  ante.,  i  206. 

3  Pawley  r.  Vogel,  41  Mo.  2!!!,  .302  ;  suijrn,  ri.  2. 

g  361.  Contracts  of  married  women  under  statutes. — 
The  present  capacity  of  married  women  to  contract 
depends  largely  on  statutes ;  and  the  effect  of  statutes, 
general  and  special,  on  the  common-law  rules  forms 
a  most  imiH^rtant  snl)ject,  which  will  be  separately 
discussed.' 

1     Pruil,  ??  a6:>-377. 

jj  362.    Contracts  charging  statutory  separate  property. 

—  The  law  of  contracts  relating  to  statutory  separate 
proijorty  has  already  been  discussed.'  The  statutory 
separate  jiroperty  is  sometimes  Liable  on  .siich  contracts 
in  equity,' and  sometimes  at  law,^  but  this  liability  of 
this  property  is  (jnite  distinct  from  a  general  personal 
liability.* 

1  An/e,  ii  2:i7-23i). 

2  Stockton  V.  Fariev,  lO  M'.  Va.  171,  17.5;  27  Am.  Rep.  5W;  anie, 
|{  2.39,  2-12. 

3  Cooksoii  )■.  Toole,  59  i;i.  51.5,  51!) ;  aiUe,  U  23!),  212. 

4  Doyle  v.  Orr,  51  Miss.  229,  232  ;  ante,  U  2:?r,  239. 

?  363.  Contracts  of  married  women  as  agents.  —  In  spite 
of  her  disabilities,  a  married  woman  can  be  an  agent.' 
It  is  very  common  to  litid  her  acting  as  her  husband's 
agent,*  and  he  is  liable  on  all  contracts  made  by  her 
witli  his  consent  or  authority.^  But  although  she  can 
bind  her  principal,  whether  she  ean  bind  herself  de- 


I    334  GENERAL   PRINCIPLES.  538 

pends  on  Avhether  she  can  herself  make  the  contract  in 
question.*  So  she  can  execute  powers  enabling  her  to 
contract,  convey,  etc.^ 

1  Ewell's  Evans  on  Agency,  p.  13 ;  post,  ?  484. 

2  Savage  v.  Davis,  IS  Wis.  608,  613  ;  ante,  U  83-98. 

3  Morgan  v.  Andriot,  2  Hilt.  431,  432 ;  Mayse  v.  Biggs,  3  Head, 
36,38. 

4  See  Tucker  r'.  Cocke,  32  Miss.  184,  ISX 

5  Vaughan  v.  "Vanderstegen,  2  Drew.  Ifio,  is.5;  Coryell  v.  Dunton, 
7  Pa.  St.  5o0,  532  ;  49  Am.  Dec.  4S9  ;  ante,  U  203,  342. 

§  3S4.  Contracts  of  married  women  through  agents.  —  A 
married  woman  had  at  common  law  no  legal  existence, 
and  could  not  therefore  have  any  legal  representative, ^ 
or  rather  her  legal  existence  was  merged  in  that  of  her 
husband,  and  he  was  for  all  things  her  agent  in  law  ;  '•' 
so  her  antenuptial  appointment  of  agent  Avas  revoked 
by  her  marriage.^  Her  capacity  to  contract  through 
agent  is  now  co-extensive  with  her  capacity  to  contract 
directly  :  thus,  she  cannot  mike  a  contract  through  an 
agent  which  she  could  not  make  herself,*  as  a  contiact 
Avith  respect  to  her  proi:)er;y  not  separate  ;'^  and  she  can 
make  through  an  agent  such  contracts  as  she  could 
make  herself,^  as  contracts  charging  her  separate  es- 
tate,' or  in  the  course  of  her  business  ;*  but  she  cannot 
execute  a  mere  power  througli  an  agent,^  as  a  release  of 
dower,!"  or  a  coiiAeyance  of  her  property,'^  under  a 
statute  requiring  certain  formalities ;  and  in  executing 
such  deeds  the  blanks  must  be  filled  up  before  her  ac- 
knoAvledgment,  as  she  cannot  appoint  an  agent  to  do 
this  afterwards.12  Her  capacity  to  act  through  agent 
must,  hoAVCA-er,  be  distinguislied  from  her  capacity  to 
contract  for  compensation  Avith  her  agent,  Avhich  con- 
tract must  be  determined  by  rules  elscAvhere  dis- 
cussed.!^  Tlie  jiosition  of  her  husband  as  her  agent," 
her  appointment  of  attorneys  at  laAV,'*  and  her  poAA^ers 
of  attorncA-,'*  are  elscAvhere  discussed. 


539  GENERAL   TKINCIPLES.  |  865 

1  See  Kelso  v.  Tabor,  52  Barb.  12.5, 128  ;  ante,  U  333,  357. 

2  Rodemeyor  i'.  Rodman,  5  Iowa,  426,  427 ;  ante,  H  82,  84. 

3  Montague  v.  Canieal,  1  Marsh.  A.  K.  3.51,  .332. 

4  Wilbur  v.  Abernethy,  .54  Ala.  &44,  616  ;  ante,  i  84,  n.  14. 

5  Hall  V.  Callahan,  66  Mo.  316,  32-1. 

6  "Vail  V.  Mever,  71  Ind.  159,  165  ;  Bickford  v.  Dare,  58  N.  H.  ]8.'5 
186  ;  cases  ante,  |j  84-SS. 

7  Vail  V.  Meyer,  71  Ind.  153,  165  ;  Morrison  v.  Thistle,  67  Mo.  596, 
600. 

8  Paine  ?».  Farr,  118  Mass.  74,  76. 

9  Holland  v.  Moon,  39  Ark.  120, 125  ;  post,  ?  406. 

10  Dawson  v.  Shirley,  6  Blackf.  .531,  ,532  ;  ante,  ?  27U 

11  Holladay  r.  Daily,  19  Wall.  606,  60'J  ;  post,  I 

12  Hord  V.  Tanbman,  79  Mo.  101,  104. 

13  See  Tucker  v.  Cocke,  32  Miss.  184,  IS!) ;  nnle,  J  87. 

14  ^nte,??  84-88, 

15  Post,  U  462,  463L 

16  Po.s^^40fi. 

I  3Gd.  Effect  of  marriage  on  antenuptial  contracts. — 
Marriage  suspends  the  remedies  against  a  married 
woman  on  her  antenuptial  contracts,'  or  rather  it 
makes  her  husband  liable  for  them  with  her,^  and  a 
judgment  recovered  on  such  a  contract  against  hus- 
band and  wife  can  be  satisfied  out  of  the  proi^erty  of 
either  of  them.'  Her  husband's  liability  ceases  on  her 
deatli  or  on  divorce,*  while  on  divorce  or  his  death  her 
full  liability  revives.^  And  the  same  is  said  to  be  the 
effect  of  any  event  which  gives  her  the  jiowers  of  a 
femme  sole.^  And  her  promise  during  coverture  to  pay 
an  antenuptial  debt  does  not  take  such  debt  out  of  the 
Statute  o{  Limitations,'  being  itself  void.^  In  many 
States  the  husband's  liability  for  his  wife's  antenuptial 
debts  has  been  destroyed  by  statute,  and  her  full  lia- 
bility on  the  same  has  been  declared.* 

1  Clarke  v.  Windham,  12  Ala,  778,  801  ;  <,.nt€,  ?  66. 

2  Discussed  ante,  ?  06. 

3  Hall  V.  White,  27  Conn.  488,  494  ;  Peace  v.  Spierin,  2  Desaus.  Eq. 
460,  470.     Contra,  Hapgood  r.  Harris,  10  Ala.  291,  292. 

4  Cureton  v.  Moore,  7  Jones  Eq.  204,  206 ;  ante,  J  66. 

5  Hall  V.  White,  27  Conn.  488,  494. ' 


2   366  GKNKKAL   PKINCIPLKS.  540 

6  Clarke  v.  Windham,  12  Ala.  78S,  SOI. 

7  Farrar  v.  Bessey,  24  Vt.  89,  93. 

8  Parker  v.  Cowen,  1  Heisk.  513,  .5J0  ;  jmut,  i  368. 
y  See  cases  cited  ant^,  I  06. 

I  366.  Confirmation  of  contracts  after  dissolution  of 
marriage.  —  The  mere  fact  that  a  wife  survives  her  hus- 
band docs  not  give  any  eflicac}^  to  her  contracts  made 
during  coverture, •  tliough  it  lias  been  held  that  a  con- 
tract enforcible  against  her  during  coverture  only,  in 
equity,  could  be  enforced  at  law  against  her  after  covert- 
ure;^ but  her  liability  on  her  antenuptial  contrac'.s 
revives.^  As  her  contracts  made  during  coverture  are 
void  and  not  voidable,*  Vaey  cannot  be  ratified,^  and 
therefore,  according  to  the  better  view,  her  mere  prom- 
ise to  perform  them  made  after  coverture  (after  divorce^ 
or  death  of  husband 'J  is  without  consideration  and 
void ;  *  but  in  some  States  the  moral  consideration  is 
deemed  sufficient  to  support  and  render  valid  such  a 
promise,*  and  in  others  the  courts  have  expressly  de- 
clined to  decide  this  point.^*'  But  whatever  be  the  oiiin- 
ion  as  to  the  effect  of  un  express  promise,  there  is  no 
doubt  but  that  a  mere  recognition  of  the  contract  gives  it 
no  new  validity.'^  A  contract  enforcible  in  equity  is, 
however,  ample  consideration  for  an  express  promise  ;  ^^ 
so  is  tlie  surrender  of  a  note  void  as  to  her,  but  binding 
on  others ;  '*  so  is  a  note  given  for  an  antenuptial  debt." 
A  married  woman  cannot  set  up  her  invalid  deed  by  pa- 
rol,'^ but  she  can  conlirin  her  assignments  and  deeds  by 
reaeknowledginent  and  recording,"^  by  estoppel,  etc.,'' 
and  in  Iowa  may  ratify  her  deed  of  the  homestead  as  if 
slie  had  never  been  married.'^  So  by  bringing  suit  on 
an  invalid  contract  she  confirms  it  by  matter  of  record. ^^ 

1  Ross  V.  .Singleton,  1  Del.  Ch.  110  ;  12  Am.  Dec.  86  ;  Caiidy  v.  Cup- 
pock,  8.3  Ind.  .5;i-l,  .VJT. 

2  Schaejfifer  ti.  Ivorv,  7  Mo.  Ajjp.  JGI,  iSZ  ;  King  v.  Mittalberger,  oO 
Mo.  182,  185. 

3  Clarke  v.  Windham,  2  Jones  Kq.  204,  206  ;  ante,  I  3G3l 


541  GENEKAL.   PRINCIPLES.  §   367 

4  Huntley  v.  AVhitner,  77  N.  C.  302,  393  ;  pr>st,  {  3G8. . 

5  Itobiiisoii,  11  Bush,  174,  170 ;  Parker  v.  Cowan,  1  Ileisk.  518,  623. 

G    Puliiani  V.  Tennvson,  50  Ind.  4o3,  4."x3  ;  Musick  v.  L)oclson,76  Mo. - 
6-4,  Gij  ;  4o  Am.  Rep.  760. 

7  Heyward  v.  Barker,  62  VI.  429,  432  ;  ."G  Am.  Rep.  7r,2. 

8  Mustek  V.  Dodson,  76  Mo.  624,  625  ;  43  Am.  Rep.  7^*0  ;  Heyward  v. 
Barker,  52  Vt.  42:i,  4;;2 ;  3ti  Am.  Kop.  7G2.    s.  P.,  \\  eiinaJl  v.  Adiiey,  i  ■ 
Bos.  &  P.  247,  252  ;  Kasitwood  v.  Kenyon,  11  Ad.  &  K.  4.i7  ;  Meyer  v. 
Huwarth,  8  Ad.  &  E.  4(.7 ;  Lloyd  v.  Loe,  1  .Strange,  !)4;   2  Saund. 
137  d;  Watson  v.  Dunlap,  2  Crunch  C.  C.  14  ;  Helhf  rington  r.  Hlxon,  ■ 
46  Ala.  207,  2!18  ;  Carter  v.  Waiin,  45  Ala.  343  ;  Valice  v.  Wells,  6  Ala. 
737  ;  Cook  t'.  Bradley,  7  Conn.  57,  61  ;  18  Am.  Dec.  7!) ;  Waters  v.  Bean, 
15  Oa.  3.'8,  360  ;  Howard  v.  Simpkijis.  70.Ua.-322,  326  ;  ThonuLS  v.  Pas- 
sage, 54  Xod..l06,,J12;  P.utnanj  i'.  Tennyson,  50-Iiid.  45G,  458;  Matter 
V.  Martin, 43  Ind.  314  ;  Robinson,  tl  P-usli,  174,  17!*;  Mills  v.  Wyman, 
3  Pick.  207;  Loomis  v.  Brush,  36  Jlicli.  40,  47  ;  Kclinerly  r.  Martin, 
8  Mo.  608,  700  ;  Price  v.  Hart,  20  Mo.  171,  Ul ;  Watkiiis  v.  HaJstead,  2 
Sand.  311,  315;  Smith  v.  Allen,  1  Lans.  101;   Groene  v.  Frondhof,  1 
Blsn.  504  ;  Foster  v.  Wilcox,  10  R.  I.  444  ;  14  Am.  Ilep.  fi:)8  ;  Shepard  • 
V.  Rhodes,  7  R.  I.  470;  McGeer  v.  Furguson,  RiUv,  l.V.i ;  Keirell  v. 
Scott,  2  Spear,  344  ;  42  Am.  ];oc.  371  ;  1  Story  Cont.  i  455  ;  1  Chit.  Cont.  • 
65, 56 ;  1  Bish.  M.  W.  J  30  ;  I  Par.  Cont.  432,  4:55. 

0  HemphilUi.McCliman.s, 24  Pa.  .St.  367,371.  SeeLeei'.  Muggeridge,  ■ 
5  Taunt.  iG  ;  Atkins  v.  Banvvell,2  Kast,  5UG  ;  Hawkes  v.  Saunders,  1 
Cowp.  2!i0;  Gibbs)'.  Merrill,  3  Taunt.  311 ;  Seaman  v.  Price,  2  Bing.  439  ; 
Stewart?'.  Eden,  2  Caines,l"0;  Viser  •i'.  Bertrand,  14  Ark.-::73  ;  Lapiter 
V.  Delogny,  33  La.  An.  659,  666  ;  Franklin  v.  Beatty,  27  Miss.  347. 

10  Spitz  V.  Fourth,  8  Lea,  641,  643.  See  Caudy  i'.  Coppock,  85  Ind. 
584,  697  ;  Hubbard  v.  Bugbee,  55  Vt.  60G,  500. 

11  Caudy  v.  Coppock,  85  Ind.  594,  507. 

12  Cleland  v.  Low,  32  Ga.  458, 4G3 ;  Hubbard  v.  Bugbee,  55  Vt.  506, 509.  • 

13  Spitz  V.  Fourth,  8  Lea,  641,  643. 

14  Parker  v.  Cowan,  1  Heisk.  518,  620. 

15  Price  v.  Hart,  20  Mo.  171,  172. 

16  Riggs  V.  Boylan,  4  Biss.  445,  446. 

17  See  ante,  I  27G ;  })nst,  ii  402-404. 

18  Spafford  r.  Warren,  47  low.a,  47,  51. 

19  Walker  1'.  Owen,  70  Mo.  503,  571. 

§  367.  Contracts  between  husband  and  wife. — There 
was,  at  common  law,  a  double  reason  for  the  invalidity 
of  contracts  between  husband  and  wife  —  an  incapacity 
of  the  husband  as  well  as  of  the  wife,  since  they  were 
one.  This  double  incapacity  did  not  exist  in  equity. 
It  is  mucli  disputed  whether  it  is  removed  bj'  statutes 
which  refer  only  to  tlie  disabilities  of  married  women. 
The  whole  subject  has  already  been  treated  fully.' 

1  ^ufe,  52  40-46. 

H.  &  W.  — 46. 


2  368  GENERAL  PKINCIPIiES.  542 

I  368.  Invalid  contracts  of  married  women  void,  not 
voidable.  —  The  invalid  contracts  of  a  married,  woman 
are  void  and  not  voidable,*  thus  differing  from  the  con- 
tracts of  an  infant ;  '^  and  they  are  equally  void  though 
the  wife  survives  her  husband,'  and,  according  to  the 
prevailing  view,  promises  to  perform  them  ;  *  and  they 
are  also  equally  void  in  the  hands  of  bona  fide  assign- 
ees for  value,  without  notice.*  For,  being  void,  they 
are  incapable  of  ratitication  by  jjarty  ^or  by  legislature." 
A  subsequent  promise  by  her  to  perform  her  invalid 
contract  is  without  consideration,^  and  her  promise 
during  coverture  to  pay  an  antenuptial  debt  of  hers 
does  not  affect  the  running  of  the  Statute  of  Limita- 
tions.' A  mortgage  to  secure  her  invalid  note  is  void,*" 
and  so  is  a  judgment  obtained  on  it ;  ■*  but  the  sureties 
on  her  void  bond''^  or  note"  are  bound,  and  so  are  her 
co-contractors."  Her  invalid  deed  is  mere  waste 
paper ;  "^  if  not  executed  according  to  the  statute,  it  can- 
not be  treated  in  equity  as  an  agreement  to  give  a 
deed  ;  '^  equity  will  not  rectify,  reform,  or  enforce  it," 
or  compel  her  husband  to  join  to  make  it  good  ;  **  such 
a  deed,  if  recorded,  is  no  notice ;  '^  and  a  subsequent 
deed  of  the  same  property  to  a  different  party,  if  prop- 
erly executed,  gives  a  good  tit  le.^  Whether  she  can  re- 
cover property  which  has  passed  out  of  her  possession 
by  an  invalid  conveyance  without  restoring  the  pur- 
chase money  is  disputed  ;  ^'  she  could  at  common  law,^'^ 
for  the  purchase  money  went  to  her  husband ;  ^  and  it 
is  the  general  rule  that  she  cannot  be  estopped  by  her 
invalid  contracts ;  **  but  there  are  cases  which  hold  that 
she  must  not  only  pay  back  the  purchase  monej',^  but 
also  allow  for  improvements  made  meanwhile,  and  put 
the  party  in  statu  quo."^^  Her  disability  is  said  to  be  for 
her  protection  and  not  for  her  ruin,^^  and,  therefore, 
when  she  has  performed  her  part  of  a  contract  she  can 


543  GENERAL  PRINCIPLES.  g   368 

sue  iii)on  it,"*  the  other  party  cannot  set  np  its  invalid- 
ity, for  this  would  be  a  fraud.'-'*  Some  courts  have 
objected  to  married  Avonien's  contracts  being  called 
void.3" 

1  Norris  ?•.  Lantz,  18  Md.  260,  269';  Bagbv  r.  Emherson,  79  Mo. 
13S,  140;  Huntley  v.  Whitner,  77  N.  C,  :w.' Jlicj ;  McJJaniel  v.  Auder- 
son,  19  S.  (.'.  'Jll,  217 ;  (tnl€,  i  357 ',  ca.ses  cited  fnfi-a. 

2  Robinson,  U  Bush,  174,  179;  Neef  v.  Redmon,7ri  Mo.  19c,  197; 
Huntley  v.  Whitner,  77  X.  C.  392,  393. 

3  Ross  V.  Singleton,  1  Del.  Ch.  149  ;  12  Am.  Dec.  86 ;  jmst,  ?  366. 

4  Groene  v.  Frondhof,  1  Disn.  504  ;  ante,  ?  366. 

5  Johnson  i'.  Sutherland,  39  Mich.  579,  5y0. 

6  Robinson,  11  Bush,  174,  179 ;  post,  ?  366. 

7  Loomis  v.  Brush,  30  Mich.  40,  47.    Discussed  071^6,  J  23. 

8  Musick  V.  Dof'.son,  76  Mo.  C24,  62.j  ;  43  Am.  Rep.  780  ;  post.  |  366. 

9  Farrar  v.  Bessej',  24  Vt.  89,  9.X 

10  Hodges  V.  Price,  18  Fla.  M2,  Mo  ;  .Sperry  v.  Dickinson,  82  Ind.  132, 
135. 

n  Doyle  V.  Kelly,  76  111.  .574  ;  Magruder  v.  Buck,  56  Miss.  314,  315  ; 
Corrigan  v.  Bell,  73  Mo.  5;j,  57  ;  Long,  14  N.  J.  Eq.  462,  466. 

12  Coverdale  v.  Alexander,  82  Ind.  503, 506. 

13  Spitz  V.  Fourth,  8  Lea,  (>11,  643. 

14  Robinson,  11  Bush,  174, 179,  180. 

15  Cross  V.  Everts,  28  Tex.  523,  531  ;  post,  Dkeds,  ??  307-408. 

16  Carr  v.  Willianis,  10  Ohio,  .30.5,  310  ;  >«  Am.  Dec.  &7-;  post,  I  407. 

17  Shroycr  v.  Nickell,  55  Mo.  264,  267  ;  j>ost,  5  403. 

18  Stevens  v.  Parrish,  29  Ind.  260,  26:!. 

19  Loomis  t'.  Brush,  36  Mich.  40,  47. 

20  Johns  V.  Reardon,  U  Md.  465.  469. 

21  See  j>o«<,  Estoppkl  of  JIakrikd  "Womkx,  ?J  409-420. 

22  Wood  V.  Terrv,  .30  .A.rk.  a8.5,  393  ;  Glidden  v.  ^trupler,  52  Pa.  St. 
400,404. 

23  Discussed  ante,  U  136. 16.3-183. 

24  Wood  I'.  Terrv,  30  Ark.  .^85,  393;  Oglesby  ?'.  Pasco,  79  111.  1(M,  170; 
Wilson  V.  Fuller,  60  How.  Pr.  480,481  ;  Keen  r.  Coleman,  39  Pa.  St. 
799,302;  post  i4ir,. 

25  Pilcher  v.  Smith,  2  Head.  20S,  211. 

26  Shrover  v.  Nickell,  55  Mo.  264,  269 ;  Danner  v.  Berthold,  U  Mo. 
App.  357,  ;«i3. 

27  Neef  v.  Redmon,  76  Mo.  195, 198. 

28  Abshire  ?'.  Mather,  27  Ind.  381,  382 ;  AValkiPr  »'.  Owen,  79  Mo.  56.3, 
571  ;  Neef  v.  Redmon,  76  Mo.  195,  197  ;  Palmer  ; .  Davis,  28  N.  V.  242, 
248. 

29  Abshire  v.  Mather,  27  Ind.  381,  382. 

30  Ilooton  V.  Ransom,  G  Mo.  App.  19,20;  Hubbard  v.  Bugbee,55Vt. 
506,508. 


I   369  EFFECT  OF  STATUTES  COXSTRUED.  544 

Article    II.  —  The    Statutes    Coxstrued — Their 
Effect. 

}  Se9.    General  statutes  not  referring  to  married  women. 

?  370.    Harried  women's  separate  property  acts,  irenerallj-. 

?  371.  JTarried  women's  separate  .  property  acts — Contracts  i:» 
equity. 

5  '"2.  Married  wonie:i"s  separate  property  a^'ts — Contracts  Tjy  im- 
plication. 

?  "5.  ilarricvl  woman's  si^parsue  pniperty  acts  —  CuntnK-ts  niider 
express  powers. 

{  374.    Statutes  expressly  authorizing  or  prohibiting'certaiu  con  tracts. 

{  STol    Statutes  expressly  authorizing  all  contracts. 

■  I  3TB.    Statutes  requiring  formalities. 

■  I  377.    I.o<*al  and  extraterritorial  effect. 

I  378.    Prospective  and  retrospective  effect, 
I  378  a.    T!ie  statutes  in  the  different  States. 

^  363.  £ff3ct  of  g^eneral  statatos  aot  montioiiinj  marriod 
women. 

Utile.  General  sfafufes  relating  to  contracts  but  not 
expressly  referring  to  married  women,  do  not  nlfcct  the 
validity  of  married  women'' s  contracts,  but  apply  to  these 
only  so  far  as  they  are  valid  umler  other  statutes. 

To  illustrate :  A  .statute  pro\'iding  that  all  deeds 
"shall  be  valid  between  the  parties  though  not  re- 
corded," would  not  render  the  deed  of  a  married 
woman  valid  ;*  a  statute  providing  for  the  giving  of  re- 
plevin bonds  doer;  not  enable  a  married  woman  plaintiff 
to  give  snc'h  a  Ijond  ;2  a  statute  relating  to  auction  bids 
•would  not  make  the  bid  of  a  married  woman  valid;' 
general  insolvent  laws  have  been  lield  inapplicable  to 
married  women.*  A  statute  requiring  the  officer  to 
certify  that  the  part}'  executing  a  deed  "was  known 
to  mo,"  does  not  apply  to  married  women's  deed  exe- 
cuted under  another  special  act  not  requiring  this;* 
nor  does  a  statute  relating  to  the  recording  of  deeds 
necessarily  apply  to  married  women's  deeds.*    But> 


545  EFFECT    OF   STATUTES    COXSTRUED.  f    870 

under  the  national  bank  acts  which  do  not  mention 
married  women,  these  are  liable  for  assessment  on 
their  stock,'  and  under  statutes  defining  the  liabilities 
of  purchasers  at  mortgage  sales  without  referring  to 
married  women,  these  have  been  held  bound,*  because 
other  statutes  had  empoAvered  them  to  hold  stock  and 
purchase  property  separately  from  their  husbands. 
So  where  a  married  v.oman  may  sue  as  if  sole,  her  at- 
torney may  under  a  general  law  obtain  a  lien  for  his 
fees  ;3  and  her  valid  mortgage  may  be  foreclosed  under 
a  general  law.i"  And  when  a  married  woman  may 
conti-act,  statutes  like  the  statute  of  frauds  apply  to  her 
contracts."  The  rule  that  general  acts  do  not  apply  to 
persons  not  sui  juris  is  familiar,'-  and  has  often  been 
applied  to  statutes  relating  to  A\alls.'' 

1  See  ante,  iV^ 

2  See  Ward  v.  Whitney,  12  Phila.  24fi. 

■5    See  De  Hay  v.  Dennis,  14  Rich.  Eq.  27,  29. 

4  Relief  r.  Schmidt,  55  3Id.  S7,  08. 

5  Bell  V.  Lyle,  10  Lea,  44,  45. 

6  Applegate  v.  Tracy,  9  Dana,  215, 224. 

7  .\nderson  7-.  Line,  H  Fed.  Rep.  405,  408 ;  The  Reciprocity  Bk.  22 
N.  Y.  9,  15. 

8  Fowler  v.  Jacob,  ild.  Ct.  App.  Oct.  1S83 ;  Md.  Law  Rec.  Oct.  4, 1884. 

9  Putnam  v.  Tciinyi5on,  50  Ind.  456,  45''. 

10  Hartman  v.  Ogborn,  54  Pa.  St.  120,  123. 

11  She  must  not  only  have  the  capacity  to  contract,  but  tlie  con- 
tract must  be  one  wliirli  would  bind  tier  if  unmarried  :  See  Hether- 
inscton  V.  Ilixon,  46  .A.la.  2'17,  2')8 ;  Sawyer  v.  Fernald,  59  Me.  500,  stn  ; 
Da  Vries?'.  Conklin,  22  Mich.  255,  25S,  230;  Bayler  t\  Com.  40  Pa.  St. 
37,  44. 

12  See  ante,  H  13,  3G9. 

13  Baker  t'.  Chastang,  IS  Ala.  4:7,  423;  Adams  v.  Kellogg,  Kirbv, 
105, 196;  1  Am.  Dec.  l-i;  Reese  r.  Cochran,  10  Ind.  l:t5.  197;  Osgood  r. 
Breed,  12  Mass.  525,  5:» ;  Marston  v.  Norton,  5  X.  H.  205, 210  ;  Cutter  t». 
Butler,  25  X.  H.  .343,  3.52;  57  Am.  Dec.  330;  Wakefield  v.  Phelps,  37 
N.  H.  295,  300 ;  ante,  ??  13,  .34.5. 

I  373.  Effect  of  statatas  creating  married  women's  stat- 
utory separata  estates. 

Rule.  Statutes  which  xcctire  to  a  vian-ird  in/maii  the 
separate  -use  and  eujoi/ment  of  her  'properly^  and,  which 


§   371  EFFKCT   OF  STATUTKS   CONSTRUED.  546 

either  do  not  refer  to  her  contracts  at  all,  or  authorize  co7i- 
tracts  '■'■relating  to,"  or  "taith  respect  to,"  etc.,  such  prop- 
erty, do  not  enable  her  to  contract  generally,  but  only 
in  connection  leith  such  property.  And  there  are  three 
classes  of:  contracts  which  may  be  authorized  by  these 
statutes,  to  ivit:  (1)  Contracts  biiuling  the  property  in 
equity  as  if  it  were  equitable  separate  property  ;  (2)  con- 
tracts falling  ivithin  the  classes  expressly  authorized  by 
the  words  ^^with  reference  to,"  etc.;  and  (3)  cojitracts 
necessary  to  the  separate  tuse  and  enjoyment  of  the  prop- 
erty, as  secured  by  the  statute. 

The  meaning  of  this  mle  is  that  statutes,  such  as  have 
been  passed  in  all  the  States,  destroying  the  husband's 
common-law  estates  in  his  -wife's  property,  and  securing 
to  the  "vvife  her  own  property  to  her  owrv  use,  do  not  af- 
fect the  general  personal  status  of  the  wife,  and  give  her 
no  capacity  to  make  any  contract  which  is  not  in  some 
way  connected  A\ith  the  property'  so  secured  to  her.*  The 
classes  of  contracts  which  may  be  authorized  by  these 
statutes  are  discussed  under  the  three  following  sections.^ 

1  Bank  v.  Porter,  99  V.  S.  rej,  a'S ;  Svkes  v.  Chadwiek,  IS  Wall. 
141, 1"<1 ;  Hodges  f.  Price,  18  Fla.  Ul,  .^1 ;  Jenne  r.  Marble.  37  Mich. 
319,  321 ;  Kenton  r.  McCIellan,  43  Mich.  5ft4,  56.i  ;  Johnson  v.  Suther- 
land, 39  Mich.  579,  »S0 ;  Rus.sell  r.  People,  39  Mich.  671,  673;  Xi  Am. 
Dec.  4+4 ;  Dovle  v.  Oi  r,  .51  Miss.  229,  zn  ;  Bailev  r.  Pearson,  29  X.  H. 
77,  86;  Hnvler  v.  Atwood,  26  N.  J.  Kq.  504,  506  ;  Eckert  v.  Renter,  33 
N.  J.  L.  2W,  2'?S  ;  Kelso  ?•.  Tabor,  52  Barb.  125,  129 ;  Morgan  v.  Andrlot, 
2  Hilt.  431,  4:f2  ;  ante,  \  2:r7. 

2  This  distinction  is  suggested  in  Bressler  i'.  Kent,  61  IlL  42fi,  430  ; 
1 1  .\m.  Rep.  67  ;  Todd  v.  Lee,  15  Wis.  305,  3S0. 

^  371.  Contracts  in  equity  nnder  married  women's  sepa- 
rate property  acts. 

Rule.  A  manried  woman\s  contracts  which  tpould  be 
binding  on  her  equitable  separate  property  in  equity  are 
valid  as  against  her  statutory  separate  property  in  the 
same  way. 

Courts  of  equity  have  long  recognized  a  married 
woman's  contracts  with  respect  to  her  property  secured 


547  EFFECT   OF   STATUTES   CONSTRUED.  g   371 

to  lier  separate  use  bj--  aetof  party — by  deed,  etc. ;  ^  and 
for  the  same  reasons  and  to  the  same  extent  they  en- 
force her  contracts  with  reference  to  her  separate  prop- 
erty created  by. act  of  the  State  —  by  statute.^  Though 
some  courts  haA'e  held  that  equity  has  nothing  to  do 
with  the  legal  separate  property  of  wives,'  the  rule 
states  the  prevailing  opinion.  But  Avhether  a  particu- 
lar contract  is  binding  on  a  particular  piece  of  property 
must  depend  on  the  rule  which  would  determine,  in 
the  place  where  the  contract  is  made,*  Avhether  the 
contract  would  be  binding  on  the  property  if  it  were 
equitable  separate  estate,  and  the  terms  of  the  statute 
were  the  terms  of  the  deed.^  Thus,  in  New  Jersey  the 
contract  uiust  be  beneficial  or  an  express  charge,^ 
while  in  Kansas  any  contract  is  h-rebutablj*  presumed 
to  be  intended  as  a  charge  on  the  property.''  So  there 
are  limitations  to  this  capacitj'.  If  the  wife  has  no  power 
to  dispose  of  tlae  property,  she  cannot  bind  it  by  her 
contract,^  aud  she  can  so  bind  it  only  to  the  extent  and 
in  the  mode  prescribed  by  statute,^  if  any  is  prescribed. 
If  her  husband's  consent  is  required  to  her  conveyances, 
it  must  accompany  her  contract.'"  On  the  principle  that 
the  naming  of  one  power  or  mode  of  execution  is  a  ne- 
gation of  all  otliers,"  if  slie  is  expressly  authorized  to 
make  certain  contracts  or  to  contract  in  certain  ways, 
she  cannot  make  any  other  contracts  or  contract  in  any 
other  way,'^  even  equity.'^  But  the  fact  that  the  law 
unplies,  from  the  terms  of  a  statute,  a  capacity  to  make 
such  contracts  as  are  necessai-y  to  the  enjoj^ment  of  her 
property  secured  by  the  statute,  does  not  prevent  her 
binding  such  property  in  equity  by  such  contracts  as 
would  have  bound  her  equitable  separate  property.'* 

1  Discussed  ante,  l\  197-216. 

2  Johnson  v.  Cummins,  16  N.  J.  Eq.  97,  1(M,  105.  See  Bedford  v. 
Burton,  106  V.  S.  ."its,  3;w,  .S40 ;  Donovan,  41  Conn.  551,  .557;  Cox  it. 
Wootl,  20  Ind.  54,  53  ;  Scott,  13  lud.  225,  228  ;  Stiields  v.  Keys,  24  Iowa, 


I    372  EFFKCT   OF   STATUTES   CONSTRUED.  548 

298,  ni3 ;  First  v.  lluiro,  30  Iowa,  44:!,  44r> ;  WIcUs  v.  Mitchell,  0  Kan.  SO, 
87  ;  Hall  V.  Kcclcston,  S7  Md.  510,  hM  ;  J'ond  v.  Carpenter,  I-'  Minn.  i:iO, 
4X1;  lioylc  r.  Orr,  .'il  Miss.  L'2:i,  •z:\l\  Selph  ?•.  llowland,  'j:!  Miss,  ail, 
207;  I'cnibertdii  v.  .lolinson,  Hi  Mo.  Ml,  .■t4:t ;  I'erUins  r  Klliott,  'li 
N.  .J.  K<i.  2.7,  'i^'.l  ;  it  .N.  .1.  IO(i.  .VJ(i,  WM,  W.V)  ;  I'cake  ,..  Lebaw.l'l  N.  .1. 
K(\.  •H\\)-l'il  ;  Wilson  v.  lirown,  II  .\.  J.  Kq.  •277,  •.;7II  ;  Yale  v.  Uedcrer, 
18  N.  Y.  20,5,  272, -27!) ;  IJalliii  )•.  Dillave,  H7  N,  Y,  liA,  .•!7  ;  Corn  r.  Bah- 
cock,  42  N.  Y.  6i;i,  028  ;  I'atrlok  r.  ),1tt611,  .'!B  Olilo  .St.  7'i,H.'!  ;  (Jraves  v. 
Phillips,  20  Ohio  St.  H7I,  :(!n  ;  (ilass  r.  Warwick,  40  I'a.  St.  110,  ^^:^■, 
Hall  V.  Dotson,  W  Tex.  520,  .524  ;  Stoekton  v.  Furlev,  10  W.  Va.  171,  175  ; 
KadforU  v.  Carwile,  i;!  W.  Va.  57;J,  001,  074. 

.1  See  Maolav  ".  liOve,  25  Cal.  307,  382  ;  West  v.  I.araway,  28  Mloli. 
404,  40j  ;  Cain  v.  ISunkley,  35  Mls.s.  11),  14.5. 

4  See  post,  I  377. 

5  Seott,  13  Ind.  225,228.  But  see  Staley  v.  llaniiltoii,  1!)  Fla.  275, 
2!)0  ;  ante,  {?  200,  207. 

6  Perkins  v.  Klliott,  23  N.  J.  Eq.  528,  534. 

7  Wicks  V.  Mitchell,  9  Kan.  80,  87. 

8  Co.x  1'.  Wood,  20  Ind.  .54,  .58,  .5').  See  Uressler  v.  Kent,  01  111.  420, 
430  ;  14  Am.  Kep.  07  ;  Berry  v.  Bland,  7  Siuedes  &  M.  77,  8;i,  81  ;  Pond 
V.  Carpenter,  12  Minn.  430.    But'See  2  Blsh.  M.  W.  I  212. 

!»    See  infra,  notes  12,  13. 

10  Hall  1'.  l'>elpston,37  Md.  510,  .520  ;  Townslov  v.  Ohapln,  12  Allen, 
476,  47!);  Selph  v.  Howland,  23  Miss.  204,207;  Kadford  v.  Carwile,  13 
W.  Va.  .57:1,  074.  But  see  Tliorjias  v.  Passage,  04  Ind.  100,  113  ;  Ward  ri. 
Servoss,  15  Ahb.  I'r.  271),  280. 

11  Dreyfus  v.  Wolffe,  05  Ala.  4!)0,  4',)8  ;  Kelso  v.  Tabor,  .52  Barb.  125, 
129. 

12  Staley  v.  Hamilton,  19  Fla.  27.5,295;  T>lllard  v.  Turner,  10  Mon. 
B.  374,  370.  See  Tracy  v.  Keith,  11  Alleii,  214,  215;  Jlobi'rtson  v. 
Bruner,  24  Miss.  242,  244  ;  Whltworth  v.  Carter,  43  Miss.  01,  71,  72; 
Dunbar  v.  Meyer,  43  Miss.  670,  <t85  ;  ijuxt,  'i  370. 

13  Cases  r>'>'<t,  '/  370,  n.  8.  Cnntra,  Donovan,  41  Conn.  .551,  557  ;  Per- 
kins r.  Elliot  t,  22  N.  .1.  Eq.  127,  129;  23  N.  .T.  Eq.  523,  .534  ;  Uravos  v. 
Phillll).s,  20  Ohio  St.  371,  .391. 

14  Todd  r\  Lee,  15  Wi.s.  .30.5,  .3.80.  See  Jones  v.  Cro.stliwaite,  17  Iowa, 
393,  403,  404. 

^  372.  Implied  power  to  contract  undor  married  women' b 
separate  property  acts. 

Ilule.  A  m'lrried  woman  in  not,  irHh  respect  to  her 
statutory  separate  property,  a  femme  sole.  She  has  hy 
implicatioyi  the  capacity  to  make  such  contracts,  and  no 
other's,  as  are  necessary  to  the  exercise  of  the  capacities, 
or  the  enjoyment  of  the  rights,  expressly  given  her  hy  the 
statute. 

That  is  to  say,  the  capacity  (o  contra(!t  must  bo  ox- 
l)res.sly  given,'  or  iL  must  be  incidental  and  noce.s.sary 


549  KFFECT   OF   STATUTES   COXSTRUKD.  g   372 

to  the  use  and  enjoyment  of  the  property  as  the  statute 
says  it  shall  be  used  and  enjoyed.-'  Under  a  statute 
providing  that  a  married  woman  sliall  have  over  her 
property  the  same  rights  and  powers  as  a  fetnme  sole, 
she  may  dispose  of  it,^  or  aj^ree  to  dispose  of  it,*  as  ;i 
fcmme  solf:,  even  by  power  of  attorney;*  she  may  in- 
vest it,8  or  eliarge  it  for  her  debts  ; '  she  may  do  with 
rcspoet  to  it  whatever  any  other  person  can  do  with 
respect  to  his  or  her  propxjrty.^  But  the  power  to  hold 
and  onj'iy  —  the  jus  tenendi  —  is  a  very  different  power 
from  the  jiower  to  dispose  of  it  —  the  ^ms  disponendi ;^ 
and  a  statute  wliioh  simply  enables  a  married  woman 
to  "hold,  use,  enjoy,  and  possess  her  property  as  if 
single,"  does  not  enalile  lier  to  dispose  of  it  as  if 
single,'"  The  power  to  dispose  must  be  given  expressly 
or  by  the  clearest  iniiilication.  In  the  case  of  mer- 
chandise,'•  and  perliajjs  of  all  chattels,"  the  power  to 
dispose  is  a  necessary  incident  of  ownership,  and  is 
given  by  implication  with  full  ownership.  There  are 
cases  wliic.h  are  in  conflict  with  this  reasoning,  and 
imply  tlio  power  of  disposition  even  of  realty  from  full 
ownersliip,'^  and  there  are  other  cases  which  would 
seem  to  deny  all  implied  powers.'^  As  to  mere  con- 
tracts, wluin  a  married  woman  may  "  liold,  enjoy,  and 
possess  her  jjroperty  as  if  solo,"  she  may  make  all  con- 
tracts necessary  to  such  holding  and  enjoyinent.i^  She 
may  lease  it, "' contract  for  legal  services  with  respect 
to  it,"  or  manual  labor  upon  it,'®  for  cultivating"*  or 
repairing'"  it,  for  selling  its  crops,''  and  render  it  lia- 
ble, at  least  to  the  extent  of  the  income,-^  for  her  debts.''* 
Whether  the  capacity  to  buy  carries  with  it  the  capac- 
ity to  buy  on  credit,'^^  and  wliether  tlae  capacity  to  sell 
carries  with  it  the  capacity  to  agree  to  sell,'^^  seems 
doubtful.  When  she  may  trade,  she  may  make  all 
contra'o':)  iu  the  u.sual  course  of  trade, ^"  and  buy  tools 


g   S72  EFFECT   OF   STATUTES   CONSTRUED.  550 

«nd  instruments  for  use  therein."  When  she  may 
manage  her  property,  she  may  submit  to  arbitration  a 
claim  arising  from  damage  to  it.^  "When  she  may  dis- 
pose, she  may  make  any  kind  of  disposition .^^  This 
implied  eaiJaclty  is  not  in  conflict  ■\\ith  her  capacity  in 
equity  already  considered  ;  the  two  may  exist  side  by 
side;^"  in  fact,  in  some  States,  the  capacity  is  imjilied 
only  in  equity .^^  According  to  the  better  view,  how- 
ever, the  married  Avoman  is  liable  on  contracts  valid 
under  this  rul6,  not  in  equitj'',  but  at  law.^^ 

1  See  post,  ?2  373,  374,  375,  rules. 

2  Bressler  v.  Kent,  61  111.  426,  427  ;  14  Am.  Rep.  67  ;  Cole  v.  "Van 
Kiper,  44  111.  58  ;  infra,  n.  15. 

3  Beal  v.  Warren,  2  Gray,  447,  459  ;  Beard  v.  Redolph,  29  Wis.  136, 
141 ;  ante,  U  20:J-205. 

4  Dreutzer  v.  Lawrence,  58  Wis.  594,  598,  509 ;  post,  {  407. 

5  P.itton  V.  King,  20  Tex.  685,  6Sfl  ;  post,  i  406. 

6  Keeper,  79  Mo.  352,  361. 

7  Williams  v.  Hugunin,  63  111.  214, 219  ;  18  Am.  Rep.  263  ;  a7ite,  J  238. 

8  Beard  v.  Redolph,  23  Wis.  136, 141- 

9  Cole  V.  Van  Biper,  44  III.  58  ;  Parent  ?•.  Oallerand,  64  111.  97,  99  ; 
Bressler  v.  Kent,  61  111.  426,  4'!0  ;  14  Am.  Rep.  67  ;  Itfiller  v.  Wetherby, 
29  X.  J.  I>.  287,  288  ;  ante,  H  205,  236. 

10  Bressler  v.  Kent,  61  111.  426, •429, 430  ;  II  Am.  Rep.  67  ;  Vreeland, 
16  N.  J.  Eq.  512,  524  ;  Swift  v.  Luce,  27  Me.  285,  238 ;  Moore  r.  Cornell, 
68  Pa.  St.  320,  322,  323  ;  supra,  n.  9. 

11  Wieman  t'.  Anderson,  42  Pa.  St.  311,  317,  318. 

12  See  Brown  v.  Fifleld,  4  Mich.  322, 327  ;  Xaylor  v.  Field,  29  N.  J.  L. 
287,  288. 

13  Harding  v.  Cobb,  47  Miss.  599,  603.  See  Scott,  13  Ind.  225,  227  ; 
Jones  1'.  Crosth waite,  17  Iowa,  393,  402  ;  Kimm  v.  Weippert,  46  Mo.  532, 
536  ;  2  Am.  Kep.  541 ;  Beard  v.  Redolph,  29  Wis.  136, 141. 

14  Lillard  v.  Turner,  16  Mon.  B.  374,  376 ;  Selzer  v.  Campbell,  15 
S.  C.  581, 589. 

15  Williams  v.  Hugunin,  63  111.  214, 219  ;  18  Am.  Rep.  268  ;  Coolison 
V.  Toole,  59  III.  515,  519  ;  Mitchell  v.  Carpenter,  50  111.  470,  621 ;  Smith 
V.  Howe,  31  Ind.  233,  234  ;  Lindley  r.  Cross,  31  Ind.  106  ;  Duren  v. 
Getchell,  53  Me.  241,  248;  Albin  v.  Lord,  33  N.  II.  136,  201,  202;  Freck- 
ing  V.  RoUand,  53  N.  Y.  422,  425  ;  Mahon  v.  Gormlev,  24  Pa.  St.  80 ; 
Wieman  v.  .A.nderson,  42  Pa.  St.  311,  317,  318  ;  Wright  r.  Blackwood,  57 
Tex.  644,  648  ;  Krouskop  j'.  Shontz,  57  Wis.  204,  214  ;  Meyers  )•.  Rahte, 
46  Wis.  6.55.  6.58  ;  Beard  v.  Redolph,  29  Wis.  136,  141  ;  Leonard  v. 
Began,  20  Wis.  510,  542  ;  Todd  v.  Lee,  15  Wis.  365,  368. 

16  Parent  v.  Callerand,  64  III.  07,  99. 

17  Leonard  v.  Rogan,  20  Wis.  540, 542  ;  post,  ?  4G3. 
IS    Cookson  V.  Toole,  5D  ILL  515,  519,  520. 


551  EFFKCT   OF    STATUTES    CONSTRUED.  ^    373 

13    Mitchell  V.  Carpenter,  50  111.  470. 

20  Beard  r.  Redolph,  23  Wis.  136,  141. 

21  Cookson  V.  Toole,  59  111.  515,  521. 

22  See  Cox  v.  Ward,  20  Ind.  54,  58, 53. 

23  Williams  v.  Ilu^unin,  69  III.  214,  219  ;  IS  Am.  Rep.  203. 

24  Tiemeyer  v.  Turnquist,  85  N.  Y.  516,  521 ;  .x)  Am.  U?p.  674  ;  ante, 
J  223. 

25  See  Felkne  v.  Tigho,  33  Ar'.c.  357,  ^61, 3G2  ;  Stedham  r.  Matthews, 
29  Ark.  ftjO,  65-<;  Shrover  v.  Kickell,  57  Mo.  264,  26S ;  Baker  v.  Hath- 
w.ny,  5  Allen,  103, 105  ;  Love  v.  Watkins,  40  Cal.  547,  5G1 ;  G  Am.  Rep. 
624. 

,  f  .26    Freaking  1^  ROtiand,  33  X.  Y.  422,  -42.5. 

27  WiI!i;imso:i  v.  Dodge,  5  Hun,  498,  433  ;  Davtoii  v.  Walsh,  -^7  Wis. 
113,  120  ;  02  Am.  Rf  p.  757. 

28  Duren  v.  Getchell,  55  Me.  241, 248. 

29  Smith  v.  Wilson,  2  jNEct.  (Kj'.)  235,  237;  Pond  r.  Carpenter,  12 
Minn.  430,  432,  433  ;  Hall  v.  Dotson,  ooTex.  520,  524  ;  ante,  5  2:.6. 

30  Todd  V.  Lee,  15  Wis.  36r,,  3S0. 

31  Huyler  v.  Atwood,  26  X.  J.  Eq.  .504,  506. 

32  See  cases  s^ipra,  n.  15. 

§  373.  Express  powor  to  contract  undor  married  women's 
separate  property  acts. 

Rule.  When  (he  statute  aiUhorizes  a  married  woman 
to  contract '■'^  with  reference  to,"  ^' with  respect  to,"  etc., 
her  separate  .properOj,  her  contracts  to  be  valid  must  be 
^^with  reference  to"  etc.,  her  said  property. 

On  the  principle  that  expressum  laiius  est  cxclusio  al- 
terius,  the  enuirieration  in  a  statute  of- certain  contracts 
which  a  married  woman  may  niake  is  a  denial  of  her 
capacity  to  make  any  others  ;i  but  it  is  probable  that 
statutes  providing  that  a  married  woman's  contracts 
with  reference  to  her  property  should  bo  valid,  aro 
simply  attempts  to  create  a  rule  in  law  which  had  pre- 
viously existed  as  to  equitable  separate  projjerty  in 
equity,^  so  that  there  would  be  no  conflict  between  this 
rule  and  the  rule  already  discussed.^  What  contracts 
do  relate  to  property  under  these  statutes  has  been 
frequently  under  discussion.  The  following  contracts 
do  relate  to,  concern,  refer  to,  and  respect  a  married 
woman's  statutory  separate  jiroperty  :  Contracts  for  the 


?  ST3  EFFECT  OP  STATUTES  CONSTRTJED.  552 

direct  benefit  of  the  same,*  for  selling,*  leasing,^  mort- 
gaging,' cultivating,^  improving,®  stocking,'"  fencing," 
repairing,!'*  supplying  with  laborers,'^  or  with  tools,'* 
the  said  property  ;  also  a  covenant  for  title  in  a  deed  of 
the  same  ;'^  an  a^iroenient  for  the  sale  of  the  same,'^  but 
not  for  tlie  purcliase  of  the  same  ;"  a  purchase  of  furni- 
ture for  lier  sejjarate  house,'^  or  of  a  horse,'*  or  tools,™ 
for  farming  her  separate  farm.  Wliether  a  purcliase  of 
propert}'^  for  her  separate  use  is  a  contract  relating  to 
her  separate  property  is  disputed  ; ''  the  better  opinion 
seems  to  be  that  tiie  obligation  to  pay  arises  only  after, 
or  at  the  same  moment  as,  tlie  property  vests,  and  that 
therefore  it  is  separate  property  when  the  promise  to 
pay  for  it  is  made,  and  the  latter  is  thus  a  contract  witli 
reference  to  it.'^''  Whetlier  a  promise  to  pay  money, 
when  a  woman  lias  no  otlier  separate  property,  is  a  con- 
tract relating  to  her  separate  property  has  been  ques- 
tioned.^ A  contract  buying  a  liorse  for  pleasure  rid- 
ing,2*  or  supplies  for  tlie  family,^^  or  a  contract  whereby 
a  married  woman  borrows  tlie  money  to  buj"^  lier  sepa- 
rate property,'^  or  a  contract  of  suretyship,*'  is  not  a 
contract  relating  to  lier  separate  property.  Still,  in  some 
States  tlie  law  raises  a  j^resumi^tion  that  a  married 
woman  intends  every  contract  to  be  with  reference  to 
her  separate  projierty,'*^  or  every  contract  which  benefits 
her.29 

1  Referred  to  ante,  i  371,  rule  ;  post,  ?  376,  rule. 

2  See  Albin  v.  Lord,  30  N.  H.  infi,  203,  201;  Peake  v.  Lebaw,  21 
N.  J.  Eq.  2R!t,  282  ;  Yale  r.  Dederer,  is  N.  Y.  265,  272,  279  ;  Walker  v. 
lieumy,  37  Va.  St.  410, 414. 

3  Ante,  H  237,  372. 

4  Russel  V.  People,  39  Mich.  671,  674. 

5  Bailey  v.  Pearson,  29  N.  H.  106,  202. 

6  Vandervoort  v.  Gould,  36  N.  Y.  639,  643. 

7  Marlow  v.  Barlew,  .53  Cal.  456,  459. 

8  Bosford  v.  Pearson,  7  Allen,  504,  505. 

9  Burr  V.  Swan,  113  Mass.  5S8,  589. 

10    Batchelderf.  .Sarsrent,  47N.  IL2C2,  264,  265. 


553  EFFECT   OF   STATUTES   CONSTRUED.  g   374 

11  Albiii  v.  Lord;  33  N.  H.  1!I6,  202. 

12  Parker  v.  Kane,  4  Allen,  34G,  "A7. 

13  See  Cookson  v.  Toole,  59  111.  515,  520  ;  supra,  n.  10. 

14  McCormlck  v.  Ilolbrook,  22  Iowa,  437,  4S3. 

15  Rl'^hmond  v.  Tibbies,  26  Iowa,  474,  476;  Bosford  v.  Pearson,  7 
Allen,  504,  505. 

16  Klr-hniond  v.  Tibbies.  2fi  Town,  474,  476;  Baker  v.  Hatbway,  5 
Allen,  in:!,  104,  105;  Bosford  v.  Pearson,  7  Allen,  504,505;  Durfee  v. 
McClurg,  6  Mich.  22;J,232. 

17  Jones  v.  Crosthwaite,  17  Iowa,  303,  402. 

18  Tillman  v.  Shackleton,  51  Mich.  447,  454,  455. 

19  Mitchell  V.  Smith,  32  Iowa,  4S4,  4S7. 

20  Bee  Batchelder  v.  Sargent,  47  N.  H.  2^2,  264. 

21  Messer  v.  Smyth,  58  N.  II.  2^8,  209  ;  infra,  n.  22. 

22  Messer  v.  Smvth,  58  N.  H.  208,  200-301.  S.  P.,  Adams  v.  Charter, 
46  Conn.  551,  554  ;  Tillman  7'.  Shackleton,  15  Mich.  447,  45ii ;  Hurler  v. 
Atwood,  26  N.  .1.  Eq.  504,  507  ;  Tiemevor?'.  Tnrnquist,85  N.  Y.  516,522  ; 
39  Am.  Rep.  674  ;  Cramer  v.  Hanaford,  5.i  Wis.  85,  «7. 

23  Butler  v.  Barber,  54  Cal.  178,  179. 

24  MclJermott  c.  Garland,  1  Mackey,  406. 

25  Schneider  v.  Garland,  1  Mackey,  350. 

26  Ames  V.  Foster,  42  X.  H.  381,  385.  But  see  Cashman  i\  Henry,  75 
N.  Y.  103,  108  ;  31  Am.  Hep.  437. 

27  RusspI  v.  People,  39  Mich.  671,  673;  Huyler  v.  Atwood,  26 
N.  J.  Eq.  .504,  506. 

28  Wicks  V.  Mitchell,  9  Kan.  80,  85,  87,  88. 

29  Huyler  v.  Atwood,  26  N.  J.  Eq.  504,  506. 

?  374.  Effect  of  statutes  expressly  authorizing  or  pro- 
hibiting specified  contracts. 

Hide.  Statutes  expressly  authorizing  on  prohibiting 
certain  specified  contracts  are  strictlg  construed,  and,  re- 
spectively, neither  authorize  nor  prohibit  any  contracts 
not  specified;  but  statutes  expressly  authorizing  specified 
contracts  may,  by  implication,  prohibit  all  others,  and 
contracts  expressly  prohibiting  certain  contracts  may,  by 
implication,  authorize  others. 

Under  a  statute  which  authorizes  one  kind  of  con- 
tract no  other  can  be  made ;  ^  thus,  when  a  married 
woman  is  empowered  to  dispose  of  her  property  by 
sale,  she  cannot  dispose  of  it  by  gift.^  The  only  capac- 
ities implied  are  those  which  are  necessarily  incidental 
to  rights  or  capacities  expressly  given.*  And  so,  on 
H.  &  W.  —  47. 


I    375  EFFECT  OP   STATT'TES  COXSTnt'ED.  554 

tho  other  hand,  Avhen  certain  con'a-acts  arc  prohibited, 
the  prohibition  ^vill  not  bo  extended  by  eonstniction  ;^ 
thus,  when  contracts  between  husljand  and  wife  are 
prohibited,  contracts  of  the  wife  as  surety  of  her  hus- 
band are  nevertheles:3  valid.^  Moreover,  on  the  prin- 
ciple that  the  naming  of  one  capacity  is  by  implication 
a  negation  of  all  others,*  v.iien  a  married  woman  is 
authorized  to  make  certain  contracts,  or  to  make  con- 
tracts executed  with  certain  formalities,  she  is  impliedly 
rostraincd  from  making  any  others,  even  in  equity." 
And  the  proliibition  of  certain  contracts  in  a  statTito 
may  make  clear  the  intention  of  the  legislature  to 
authorize  all  other  contracts  of  the  class  to  wliich  the 
prohibited  contract  belongs ;  thus,  under  a  statute 
authorizing  a  married  woman  to  acquire  property, 
"  provided  that  no  acquisition  from  her  husband  in 
prejndice  of  the  rights  of  his  creditors  shall  be  valid,'' 
authorizes  her  to  acquire  from  her  husband  in  all  cases 
when  the  rights  of  his  creditors  are  not  prejudiced.' 

1  Abshir'?  v.  State,  5.")  Ind.  fi4.  fiT :  Sturmfeltz  v.  Frickev,  43  Md. 
563,  bTl  ;  J{obertson  r.  Cruner,  24  Miss.  :;4J,  '244.     He^ post,  5  •'576,  ii.  8. 

2  Mott  V.  Smith,  10  Cal..535,  506. 

3  Discussed  ante,  }  ST-"?. 

4  See  Ingoldsby  r,  Juan,  12  Cal.  5T5  ;  Maclay  v.  Love,  25  C'al.  381 ; 
ante,  {  16. 

5  Major  v.  Holmes,  124  Slass.  108, 100. 

6  Kelso  V.  Tabor,  52  Barb.  125, 129.    See  ante,  ?  "72  ;  post,  ?  376. 

7  Staley  r.  Hamilton,  19  Fla.  275,  295. 

8  Trader  r.  Lowe,  45  Md.  1, 14.  See  Goree  v.  Walthall,  44  Ala.  161, 
1G4. 165 ;  Kingsley  v.  Gilman,  15  Minii.  50, 60, 61. 

\  375.  Effect  of  statutes  expressly  authorizing  married 
womon  to  contract  as  if  unmarried. 

Rule.  Under  a  statute  expressly  enabling  a  married 
woman  to  contract  as  if  unmarried,  she  may  make  con- 
tracts generally,  entirely  unaffected  by  her  coverture,  but 
it  is  doub\fid  whether  she  may  make  contracts  di^'ectly 
with  her  husband. 


.555  EFFECT   OF   STATUTES   CONSTRUED.  I    376 

When  the  statvite  saj^s  that  she  may  contract  as  if 
sole,  it  is  presumed  to  mean  it ;  ^  her  contracts  are  not 
afTcctod  by  coverture  at  all ;  ^  she  may  make  all  kinds 
of  contracts  which  an  unmarried  woman  may  make,* 
including  contracts  of  suretyship,^  promissory'  notes,* 
contracts  binding  her  equitable  separate  property,^  etc. 
An  implied  jjromise  rises  against  her  in  cases  Avhen  it 
would  rise  against  a.femme  sole.''  And  on  her  contracts 
made  under  such  a  contract  she  is  liable  at  law  and  in 
damages.*  But  when  her  contracts  with  her  husband 
are  considered,  other  principles  are  brought  into  play.^ 

1  Edwards  i'.  Schoeneman,  10-1  111.  27S,  283. 

2  Worthington  v.  Cooke,  52  Md.  207,  308. 

3  See  Pelzer  v.  Campbell,  15  S.  C.  581,  601  ;  40  Am.  Rep.  T05  ;  infra, 
n. -1. 

4  Hart  v.  ttrigsbv,  14  Bush,  542  ;  Mavo  v.  Hutchinson,  57  Me.  546  ; 
Maior  )'.  Holmes,  124  Mass.  108,  103  ;  Witte  v.  Wolfe,  16  S.  C.  256,  268, 
26'J  ;  Pelzer  v.  Campbell,  15  S.  C.  581,  601 ;  40  Am.  Rep.  705. 

5  See  Messer  v.  Smyth,  58  X.  H.  298,  299. 

6  Witte  V.  Wolfe,  16  S.  C.  2m,  26.S,  269. 

7  Spafford  v.  Warren,  47  Iowa,  47,  51  ;  Hickson  v.  Williams,  41 
N.  J.  L.  35,  38  ;  Ackley  v.  Westervelt,  86  N.  Y.  448,  453  ;  post,  i  381. 

8  Worthington  v.  Cooke.  52  Md.  297,  298. 

9  Discussed  ante,  I  43. 

^  876.    Effect  of  statutes  requiring  formalities. 

Rule.  If  a  statute  u-hich  eirables  a  married  u'oman  to 
contract  requires  her  contracts  to  be  executed  in  a  certain 
way,  this  reqtiirement  must  be  substayttially  complied  with 
to  give  her  contract  any  validity;  but  if  she  has  the  ca- 
pacity to  contract  independently  of  the  statute  which 
requires  the  formalities,  a  contract  not  complying  there- 
with may  still  be  valid. 

Tliis  rule  has  reference,  more  espeeiallj%  to  deeds  of 
married  women.  Before  the  legislatures  began  to  se- 
cure married  women's  property  to  their  separate  use, 
thej'  ])rovided  for  tlieir  release  of  dower,  and  their  con- 
veyance of  the  reversion  in  their  realty,  by  joint  deed 
with   their  husbands ;  and  these  statutes  usually  re- 

/ 


I    310  EFFECT    OP    STATUTES    CONSTRUED.  5o6 , 

quired  the  wife's  acknowledgment  to  be  taken  apart 
from  her  husband,  and  to  be  accompanied  by  her  dec- 
laration that  she  acted  freely  and  of  her  own  accord. ^ 
Under  such  statutes,  there  is  no  question  but  that  the 
deed  of  a  married  woman  not  so  executed  was  abso- 
lutely void  ;^  for  the  statute  gave  her  a  jiower,  the  only 
power  that  she  had,  and  the  deed  not  being  a  good  exe- 
cution of  the  power  was  not  valid  under  the  statute, 
and  could  not  be  valid  by  virtue  of  any  other  capacity 
of  hers,  because  she  had  none.^  Such  a  deed  could  not 
ratify  ;  *  any  act  of  hers  to  make  it  good  would  have  to 
be  equivalent  to  a  new  deed,^  and  would  not  rola'.e 
back  but  would  take  effect  only  from  the  time  of  i'.s 
execution.*  Nor,  probably,  could  the  legislature  cure 
the  defect  in  such  a  deed.^  Nor  could  such  a  deed  be 
reformed,  i^erfected,  or  enforced  in  equity,^  for  though 
it  lies  within  the  peculiar  province  of  equity  to  reform 
defective  deeds,^  and  enforce  them  as  agreements  to 
give  deeds,'"  this  jurisdiction  of  equity  is  founded  on 
the  general  capacity  of  the  parties  to  contract"  —  a  ca- 
pacitj^  which  a  married  woman  did  not  have ; '-  and 
besides,  equity  could  not  reform  or  perfect  the  execu- 
tion of  a  statutory  power,^^  Of  course,  the  above  rea- 
soning does  not  apply  to  deeds  of  equitable  separate 
property  in  States  where  n,  married  woman  holds  such 
property  as  if  sole."  How  far  it  applies  to  statutory 
separate  estate  is  the  difhcult  question.  As  to  this 
property,  it  is  generally  said  tliat  it  cannot  be  conveN^ed 
unless  the  statute  so  provides,'^  and  that  it  can  be  con- 
veyed only  in  the  mode  prescribed  by  statute.'^  A 
married  woman's  implied  power  to  dispose  of  her  stat- 
utory separa'e  estate  has  already  been  discussed.'' 
Where  she  has  no  implied  power,  and  there  is  no  ex- 
press power  given,  she  conveys  it  just  as  she  conveyed 
her  property  a"  common  lav.-.'s    Where  there  is  an  ex- 


557  EFFECT   OF   STATUTES   COXBTKUED.  ^    376 

press  power  given,  but  it  is  coupled  with  a  provision 
tliat  it  must  be  executed  in  a  certain  way,  then  a  deed 
not  so  executed  would  be  void,'^  like  the  deeds  already 
discussed.  Where  slie  is  expressly  empowered  to  con- 
vey "as  if  unmarried,"  tliough  there  is  a  further  pro- 
vision that  her  husband  must  join,2o  her  defective  deed, 
or  deed  not  properly  acknowledged  and  recorded, 
provided  that  if  her  husband's  joinder  is  required  lie 
has  joined,  is  valid  between  the  parties, ^^  and  may  be 
corrected  and  enforced  in  equity  as  if  it  were  the  deed 
of  an  unmarried  woman.22  So  if  she  has  the  power  to 
contract  generally, ^^  or  to  contract  witli  reference  to 
her  property ,2*  her  defective  deed  may  be  enforced  as  a 
contract  in  equity,^  or  she  may  be  estopped  thereby.-^ 
It  is  therefoi-e  only  when  a  married  woman  has  the 
capacity  to  convey  as  if  sole,  or  the  general  capacity  to 
contract  ijcrsonally  or  with  reference  to  her  property, 
that  her  deeds  not  executed  with  the  formalities  re- 
quired by  statute  for  deeds  can  have  any  validity 
whatever.  As  already  suggested,  slie  may  be  required 
to  execute  a  deed  as  if  sole,  or  under  a  particvilar  stat- 
ute relating  only  to  married  women.  Under  the  lat- 
ter statutes,  the  privy  acknowledgment  is  absolutely 
necessary,^'  and  the  certificate  on  the  deed  must  show 
that  all  the  formalities  required  bj'  the  law  have  been 
conformed  to.^^  The  certificate  cannot  be  aided  by  out- 
side proof,-'^  or  corrected  in  equity.^"  Substanlial  com- 
pliance with  the  statute  is,  however,  all  that  is  required, 
the  precise  words  of  tlie  staUite  need  not  be  used.^^  The 
certificate  is  p7-ima  facie  ev'dence,^''  but  is  not  conclu- 
sive^ tliat  the  law  has  been  complied  witli,  and  except 
as  against  bona  fide  purchasers,^*  it  may  be  impeaclied.^^ 

1  See  discussion  in  2  Scribner  Dow.  ch.  13 ;  jynst,  §J  394-40S. 

2  Holland  v.  Moon,  3n  Arlc.  120,  121  ;  Leonis  i\  Luzzarovich,  r.o  C  U. 
52,  57  ;  Gebb  v.  Rose,  40  IMd.  3S7,  31)2  ;  Sliroyer  v.  Nickell,  .%'>  Mu.  iG4, 
2G7,  CG8 ;    Rosentlial  v.  Mayhugli,  33  Ohio  St.  155,  159 ;  Gillespie  v. 


g    376  BFFECT   OF   STATUTES   CONSTRUED.  558 

Warford,  2  Cold.  6C2,  CaS  ,   Cross  v.  Everts,  28  Tex.  52.3,  532;   inrra, 
n.  8. 

3  .See  Shroyer  j'.  Nickell,  .55  Mo.  264,  267  ;  Silliman  r.  Cummins,  13 
Ohio,  116,  llii. 

4  Buchanan  v.  Hagned,  95  Pa.  St.  240,  243. 

5  Miller  v.  Shackleford,  3  Dana,  280,  2'J7. 

6  Doe  V.  Hovvland,  8  Cowen,  277,  284  ;  18  Am.  Dec.  445. 

7  Discussed  post,  ?  378. 

8  Williams  v.  Walker,  Law  R.  9  Q.  B.  D.  .576,  581 ;  Drury  v.  Foster, 
2  Wall.  24,  .34  ;  Holland  v.  Moon,  3.i  Ark.  120,  124;  Stidman  v.  Mat- 
thews, 29  Ark.  6.50,  6.58,  662  ;  Simpson  v.  Montgomery,  25  Ark.  365,  373  ; 
Leonis  v.  Lazzarovici.,  55  CaU  .52,  55 ;  Atwater  r.  Buckingham,  5  Day, 
492,  497  ;  Breit  v.  Yeaton,  101  III.  242,  262;  Patterson  v.  Lawrence,  90 
111.  174,  180 ;  32  Am.  Dec.  22  ;  Lindley  v.  Smith,  58  111.  2.50;  Martin  t'. 
Hargardine,  46  111.  422,  425  ;  Rogers  v.  Higgiiis,  48  111.  211, 216  ;  Stevens 
V.  Parish,  2;)  Ind.  260,  263  ;  Grapengether  v.  Fcjervary,  9  Iowa,  163, 173; 
Blivckburn  v.  Pennington,  8  Mon.  B.  217  ;  John.son  v.  Reardon,  11  Md. 
465,  469,  470  ;  Gebb  v.  Rose,  40  Md.  .3,87,  394;  Townsk  v  ;•.  Chapin,  12 
Allen,  476,  479  ;  Hord  v.  Taubman,  79  Mo.  101,  104  ;  White,  16  N.  J.  L. 
202,  2!4  ;  Marvin  v.  Smith,  46  N.  Y.  .571,  574  ;  Wiswall  v.  Hall,  3  Paige, 
31.3,  317  ;  Knowles  r.  MoOaulv,  10  Paige  Ch.  .342,  347  ;  Green  r.  Branton, 
1  Dev.  Eq.  .500,  .503  ;  Purcell  r.  Goshorn,  17  Ohio,  105,  124 ;  49  Am.  Dec. 
448  •  Davenport  r.  Savi!,6  Ohio  St.  .5o'.l,  566  ;  Carr  v.  Williams,  10  Ohio, 
3a5,  310  ;  36  Am.  Dec.  87  ;  Rosoburgh  v.  Sterling,  27  P.a.  St.  292,  293  ; 
Wright  V.  Dufield,  58  Tex.  218,  225;  Cross  v.  Everts,  23  Tex.  528,  532. 

9  Simpson  v.  Montgomery,  25  Arlt.  365,  373. 

10  See  Gebb  v.  Rose,  40  Md.  a87,  39.3. 

11  Shroyer  v.  Nickell,  55  Mo.  264,  267. 

12  Discussed  ante,  U 197-216. 

13  Bright  v  Bovd,  1  Story,  478,  4S7  ;  McBride  v.  Wilkinson,  20  Ala. 
662,  667;  Ellet  r.  Wade,  47  Ala.  4-56,  464  ;  Mereau  v.  Detchemendy,  18 
Mo.  .5'22,  ,531  ;  Silliman  r.  Cummins,  13  Ohio,  116,  118.  Contra,  Clavton 
V.  Frazier,  33  Tex.  91, 100. 

14  Gebb  V.  Rose,  40  Md.  387,  .392.  See  Jones  r.  Rees",  65  Ala.  134, 
141  ;  Chew  v.  Beall,  13  Md.  348,  360  ;  Finch  v.  Marks,  70  Va.  207,  209. 

15  Bressler  v.  Kent,  61  111.  426,  429 ;  14  Am.  Rep.  G7. 

16  Gilchrist  v.  Borie,  1  Dev.  &  B.  Eq.  346,  359  ;  gupra,  notes  1,  8. 

17  Ante,  ?  372. 

18  Bressler  v.  Kent,  61  111.  426,  429  ;  14  Am.  Rep.  67 ,  Grapengether 
V.  Fejervarv,  9  Iowa,  163,  173  ;  Gebb  v.  Rose,  40  Md.  a87,  392  ;  Young,  7 
Cold.  461,  479  ;  Lightfoot  v.  Boss.  8  Lea,  a50,  a51  ;  Hawlev  v.  Trovman, 
29  Gratt.  728,  720  ;  Radford  )•.  Carwile,  18  W.  Va.  573,  670 ;  Tavlor  v. 
Meade,  4  DeGe.x,  J.  &  S.  597,  607. 

19  Silliman?'.  Cummins,  13  Ohio,  116, 118  ;  cases  cited  «i(pra,  nn.  1,8. 

20  See  Hall  r.  Eccleston,  37  Md.  510,  520. 

21  See  Scranton  v.  Stewart,  52  Ind.  68,  89. 

22  See  Bedford  v.  Morton,  106  V.  S.  3^8,  341  ;  Edwards  v.  Schoene- 
man,  104  111.  278,  284  ;  Scranton  )•.  Stewart,  .52  Ind.  68,  8 ) ;  Phillips  ?'. 
Graves,  20  Ohio  St.  371, 389  ;  Dreutzer  r.  Lawrence,  58  Wis.  594,  598,  599. 

23  See  Love  v.  Watklns,  40  Cal.  .547, 5.59  ;  6  Am.  Rep.  624  ;  ante,  ?  376. 

24  Baker  v.  Hathway,  5  Allen,  10.3,  105  ;  ante,  U  374,  375, 

25  ,smiman  v.  Cummins,  13  Ohio,  116, 119, 


559  EFFECT   OF   STATUTES   CONSTRUED.  g    377 

26  Powell,  98  Pa.  St.  40",  41^  Othorwiso  no  estoppel :  Leonis  r. 
Lr.zzarovioh,  55  Cal.  52, 58  ;  Drury  v.  Foster,  2  WaJl.  24, :«  ;  South,  iiaw 
Rev.  Oct.  1882,  article  by  lion.  S.  D.  Thompson  ;  post,  H  40^-420. 

27  Deed  is  mere  waste  paper  without :  Cross  r.  Everts,  2S  Tex.  523, 
."^".2 ;  Ivlariner  v.  Saunders,  5  Uilm.  125  ;  Leonis  v.  Lazzarovich,  55  Cal. 
52,  57. 

23  Basrby  r.  Emberson,  TOMo.  139, 140  ;  Gill  v.  Fauntlerov,  8Mon.  B. 
177, 180  ;  Boiling  v.  Teal,  76  Va.  487, 4;i4  ;  Mullins  v.  Weaver,  57  Tex.  5,  6. 

29  Jourdan,9  Serg.  &  R.  268.  274  ;  U  Am.  Dec.  724.  See  Elliott  v. 
Peirsol,  1  McLean,  11:1  Peters,  32-<  ;  Pendleton  v.  Button,  3  Conn. 
40(j,  412;  Martin  v.  Harg:irdine,  46  111.  322,  325  ;  O'Ferrall  r.  Simplot.  4 
Iowa,  ;i81 ;  Smith  v.  Hunt,  13  Ohio,  2(i0,  208  ;  42  Am.  Dec.  201. 

30  Barnett  v.  Shackleford,  6  Marsh.  J.  .T.  532,  534  ;  22  Am.  Dec.  100  ; 
Silliman  v.  Cummins,  13  Ohio,  IKi.  118  ;  supra,  n.  8. 

31  Muir  V.  Galloway,  Gl  Cal.  408,  502  ;  Gregory  v.  Ford.  5  Mon.  B. 
471,  481  ;  Browu  v.  Farran,  3  Ohio,  140.  155. 

32  Young  V.  Duvall,  109  U.  S.  573,  577  ;  Smith  v.  McGuire,  67  Ala. 
C4,  37  ;  Priest  v.  Cummings,  16  Wend.  617,  631. 

.33  Evster  v.  Hathawav,  50  111.  521,  524 ;  Ford  ?•.  Teal,  7  Bush,  ire, 
15^  ;  Marsh  v.  Mitchell,  2(i  X.  J.  Eq.  4H7,  499  ;  Louden  v.  Blythe,  16  Pa. 
St.  532,  542  ;  27  Pa.  St.  22,  2.i  ;  55  Am.  Dec.  527. 

34  De  Arnaz  v.  Escaudon,  59  Cal.  ^86,  489  ;  Kerr  v.  Russell,  69  111. 
666,670;  18  Am. Rep.  38  ;  Johnston  ('.Wallace,  53  Mis.s.  331,  337  ;  24  Am. 
Rep.  699 ;  Baldwin  v.  Snowden,  11  Ohio  St.  203,  212 ;  Shrader  v. 
Decker,  9  Pa.  St.  14, 16  ;  Louden  v.  Blythe,  27  Pa.  St.  22,  25  ;  Hill  v. 
Patterson,  51  P.i.  St.  289,  290  ;  Davis  v.  Kennedy,  58  Tex.  516,  519  ; 
Harkins  v.  Forsythe,  11  Leigh,  294,  304. 

35  Cridge  v.  Hare,  98  Pa.  St.  561,  565  ;  supra,  notes  33,  31. 

^  377.    Effect  of  statutes,  local  and  foreign. 

Rule.  The  capacity  of  a  married  woman  to  contract 
personally,  or  as  to  movables,  depends  on  the  laiv  of  the 
place  ivhere  the  contract  is  made;  to  contract  as  to  im- 
m,ovables,  on  the  law  of  the  place  tvhere  they  lie. 

Though  the  general  rule  is  that  the  validity  of  mar- 
ried women's  contracts,  like  that  of  other  contracts, 
depends  on  the  law  of  tlie  State  where  they  are  made,^ 
there  is  another  view,  that  this  depends  on  tlie  law  of 
their  domicile.^  There  is  much  confusion  among  the 
cases  relating  to  this  subject.  The  points  decided  have 
already  been  discussed.* 

1  Scudder  v.  Union,  91  U.  S.  406,  411  ;  Drake  x\  Glover,  30  Ala.  382, 
389;  Nixon  j'.  Haliev,  78  111.-611,615;  Hallev  v.  Ball,  60  111.  2.50,  252; 
Baldwin  r.  Gray,  16  Mart.  (La.)  192,  193  ;  Saul  r.  Creditors,  17  Mart. 
(La.  I  56  1,  597  ;  Andrews  ?>.  Creditors,  11  La.  464,476;  Bell  v.  Packard, 
ro  Me.  lOr,,  no  ;  31  Am.  Rep.  251  ;  Bank  r.  Williams,  46  Miss.  618,  629  ; 
12  Am.  Rep.  319  ;  Millikin  v.  Pratt,  125  Muss.  374,  377,  3S1  ;  28  Am.  Rep. 
241  ;  Ross,  129  Mass.  243,  24G  ;  Wright  v.  Remington,  41  N.  J.  L.  48,  51 ; 


§§  378-378  a    kffecx  of  statutks  construkd.         530 

Pearl  v.  Hansborourrh,  9  Humph.  •12fi,  4^5;  Holmes  v.  Kevnolds,  55 
Vt.  3.1,  41  ;  De  Greuchy  v.  Wills,  Law  K.  4  C.  P.  D.  362,  ;;fr4  ;  Dicey 
Dom.  p.  1'j5. 

2  Dow  V.  Gould,  31  Cal.  629,  652  ;  Frierson  v.  Williams,  57  Miss.  431, 
4B2.    See  Kelly  v.  Davis,  28  La.  An.  773,  774  ;  ante,  U  33,  34. 

3  Ante,  I  37. 

I  378.  Prospective  and  retrospective  effect  of  acts. — 
The  validity  of  a  contract,  and  tlie  rights  of  the  parties 
thereunder,  depends  upon  the  law  existing  at  the  time 
it  is  made. I  Thus,  a  statute  providing  that  "all  con- 
tracts of  married  women  shall  be  valid,"  does  not  affect 
existing  ones,-  and  a  note  made  before  the  passage  of 
such  an  act  is  invalid,  though  delivered  thereafter;* 
but  if  delivery  is  authorized  afterwards  the  note  is 
good.*  There  is  much  disiiuto  as  to  whether  a  statute 
can  cure  the  defects  in  deeds  of  married  women.^  The 
remedy  can  be  clianged  from  law  to  equity.^ 

1  Edwards  v.  Schoeneman,  104  III.  27S,  2S2  ;  Loomis  v.  Briisli,  .« 
Mi:;h.  40,  47;  Kclcert  v.  Reuter,  31  X.  J.  L.  133  ;  ante,  U  19-23. 

2  Lee  v.  Lanahan,  5!)  Me.  478,  4S1 ;  Eryaiit  v.  Merrill,  55  Me.  5:5, 5:(;. 

3  Taylor  v.  Boardman,  92  111.  566,  568 ;  caite,  i  338. 

4  Taylor  v.  Boiirdman,  92  111.  56S,  568. 

5  Discussed  ante,  J  -X 

6  Williams  v.  King,  43  Conn.  5^9,  571 ;  ante,  J  23,  n.  13. 

I  378  a.  Tho  statutos  in  th.9  difibront  States.  —  It  is  not 
within  tho  plan  of  this  Avork  to  discuss  minutely  tlio 
state  of  the  law  on  any  particular  toiiic  in  each  particu- 
lar State,  but  some  recent  cases  which  seem  to  cover 
the  subject  of  contracts  of  married  women  in  different 
States  very  fully  are  cited  in  a  noto.^ 

1  Marlow  v.  Barlew,53  Cal.  456,  459  ;  Leonis  v.  Lazzarovich,  55  Cal. 
53,  5.V-59;  Wells  v.  Caywood,  3  Culo.  437,  404  ;  Williams  v.  Hugunui,  69 
111.  214,  218  ;  IS  Am.  Itcp.  607 ;  Thoraas  v.  Passage,  54  Ind.  108,  111-113  ; 
Spafford  v.  Warren,  47  Iowa,  47, 51  ;  Yates  v.  Lurvcy,  65  Me.  221,  222  ; 
J  jnne  v.  Marblo,  w  Mich.  319,  321  ;  Reed  v.  Burrs,  44  Mich.  80,  82; 
Musick  V.  Dodson,  76  Mo.  319,  321 ;  43  Am.  R'-p.  ThO ;  State  v.  Scott,  10 
Neb.  83,  86  ;  Moss^r  %k  Smith,  oS  N.  II.  2  I3,  2J9  ;  Eekert  v.  Router,  33 
N.  J.  L.  266,  27)  ;  Huylor  v.  Atwood,  26  N.  J.  Eq.  504,  506;  Saratoga  v. 
Pruyn,  90  N.  Y.  250,  254  :  Dougherty  v.  Sprinkle,  83  N.  C.  300,  302,  304  ; 
Pippen  V.  Wesson,  74  N.  C.  4  ;7,  4  !7, 455  ;  Ross  v.  Lunder,  12  S.  C.  592, 
594  ;  Houghton  f.  Milburn,  54  Wis.  554,  .563,  564 ;  Krouskop  v.  Shontz, 
51  Wis.  201, 203,  213  ;  ICavanaugh  v.  O'Neil'  53  Wis.  101,  105, 


561  SPKCIAL   IvINDS   OF   CONTRACTS.  g   379 


Article  III.  —  Spkcial,  Kinds  of  Contract.s 

§  379.  Contracts  in  personam  and  ia  rem. 

i  380.  Executory  and  executed  contract:!. 

i  381,  Express  and  implied  contracts. 

I  33X  Contracts  made  alone  and  jointly  with  husband. 

?  383.  Purchases  and  sales. 

?  384.  Covenants  and  bonds. 

J  383.  Promissory  notes. 

J  336.  Releases  and  receipts.- 

§  337.  Hont,  repairs,  and  family  expenses 

J  3S3.  Submission  to  arbitration. 

i  i  389.  Employment  of  agents. 

?  3!)0.  Liabilities  as  stoelvholdtT. 

?  391.  Contracts  as  surety. 

?  392.  Contracts  as  trader, 

g  39S.  iliscollaneous  contracts,  etc. 

§  379.  Co:[itract3  of  marriod  women  in  porsonam  and  in 
rem.  —  111  considering  the  contract.s  of  a  married  woman 
it  ti  important  to  distinguish  between  her  personal  con- 
tracts, which  bind  her  personally,  and  her  contracts 
with  reference  to  her  .separate  property,  which  are  bind- 
ing thereupon.!  The  distinction  originated  in  equity, 
wliich  recognized  her  separate  ownership  of  property 
settled  to  her  sole  and  sejiarate  use,  and  her  capacity  to 
change  the  same  with  her  contracts. ^  Such  contracts 
were  not  enforcible  against  her  personally,  but  only 
against  the  property,  Avhich  became  a  kind  of  artificial 
person,^  iii  a  proceeding  in  retn.^  And  so,  under  stat- 
utes creating  statutory  separate  estate,  the  courts  con- 
tinued to  hold  that  her  contracts  to  be  valid  sliould  be 
"  with  reference "  to  her  estate,^  and  that  mere  per- 
sonal contracts  were  void,*  unless  expressly  authorized.^ 
The  distinction,  originally  one  botli  of  capacity  and  of 
remedy,  has  in  some  States  under  the  statutes  become 
one  of  capacity  only,  the  woman  being  liable  as  if 


I   380  SPECIAL   KINDS   OF   CONTRACTS.  562 

unmarried  on  all  eoniracts  made  ■with  refercnco  to 
her  estate.*  On  this  point,  however,  much  confusion 
exists.^ 

1  See  Grissell,  12  Ch.  Div.  484  ;  Wort'jingtou  v.  Cooke,  .i2  3rd.  297, 
.WS  ;  Pawley  v.  Vogel,  42  Mo.  2ill,  302 ;  Walker  v.  Deaver,  79  Mo.  684, 
C74  ;  Uoughertv  v.  Sprinkle,  88  N.  C  300,  302  ;  Smith  v.  Oooch,  S3  N.  C. 
276  ;  Groene  v.  Frondhof,  1  Disn.  504,  505. 

2  Discussed  ante,  \i  206,  207. 

3  Dougherty  v.  Sprinkle,  83  N.  C.  300,  .302. 

4  Pawley  v.  Vogel,  42  Mo.  2',il,  302,  301  ;  ante,  i  211. 

5  Russel  r.  People,  39  Mich.  671,  673  ;  ante,  i  370. 

6  Bank  v.  Porter,  99  U.  S.  325,  3.T2  ;  ante,  ?  370. 

7  See  Bailey  v.  Pearson,  29  N.  II.  76,  87  ;  ante,  ?  371. 

8  See  Kavanaugh  v.  O'Neill,  54  Wis.  101,  lOG  ;  ante,  U  372,  373. 

9  See  Eckert  ;•.  Reuter,  .33  N.  J.  L,.  266, 263  ;  Dougherty  v.  Sprinkle, 
88  N.  C.  300,  304  ;  ante,  U  211,  237-239,  370,  372,  373. 

g  380.  Executory  and  executed  contracts.  —  Tliere  is 
among  the  cases  frequent  reference  made  to  a  distinc- 
tion between  executory  and  executed  contracts  of  mar- 
ried women,  all  the  latter  being  .said  to  be  void  unless 
the  married  woman  had  tlie  capacity  to  contract  gen- 
erally.^ The  real  distinction  seems,  however,  to  be 
between  contracts  binding  a  married  woman  person- 
ally and  contracts  binding  her  property, ^  as  promises 
to  pay  money  if  charged  on  her  property  are  valid, 
though  executory,^  and  as  she  may,  by  comijl^'ing^vlth 
the  same  formalities,  bind  her  projjertj''  by  an  agree- 
ment to  give  a  deed  as  well  as  bj'  a  deed  itself.*  How- 
ever she  may  be  estopped  by  her  agreement  to  perforin 
a  statutory  power,*  she  cannot  be  compelled  to  specific- 
ally perform  such  a  contract.^ 

1  Stevens  v.  Parish  29  Ind.  260,  263 ;  Shroyer  v.  Nickell,  £5  Mo. 
264,  26S  ;  Andriot  v.  Lawrence,  33  Barb.  142, 143. 

2  Discussed  ante,  ?  379. 

3  Girault  v.  Adams,  61  Md.  8,  13  ;  ante,  i  206. 

4  See  Townslev  v.  Chapin,  12  Allen,  476,  478  ;  Donkel  v.  Hunter, 
61  Pa.  St  382,  384  ;  post,  'i  407. 

5  See  Felkne  v.  Tighe,  33  Ark.  357,  363  ;  post,  |  407. 

6  Bright  v.  Boyd,  1  Story,  478,  487  ;  post,  I  407. 


563  SPECIAL,   KINDS   OF   CONTRACTS.      ^^    381-382 

§  381.  Express  and  implied  contracts  of  married  women. 
— A  promise  will  not  be  imialied  bj^  law  when  the  law 
would  not  recognize  an  express  promise ; '  so  that,  at 
common  law,  there  was  no  implied  assumpsit  against  a 
married  woman  ;  -  and  her  payment  during  coverture 
on  account  of  an  antenuptial  debt  did  not  affect  the 
running  of  the  Statute  of  Limitations.'  But  when  she 
can  contract  she  may  be  suable  on  the  common  counts ;  * 
if  she  occupies  premises,  the  law  raises  an  implied  prom- 
ise to  pay  rent ;  ^  if  she  orders  materials,  the  law  implies 
a  contract  to  pay  for  them.^  But  if  she  buj^s  necessaries, 
the  implied  promise  is  one  of  the  husband's,^  for  he  is 
liable  therefor.*  And  if  she  receives  money  claimed 
by  another,  there  is  no  implied  i^romise  to  pay  it  back.^ 

1  Tucker  v.  Cocke,  32  iUss.  18-!,  190 ;  Farrar  v.  Bessey,  2-J  Vt.  89,  91. 

2  Tucker  v.  Cocke,  32  Miss.  184, 190. 

3  Farrar  v.  Bessey,  24  Vt.  89,  92. 

4  Hickson  v.  Williams,  41  N.  J.  I^.  35,  :«  ;  Spafford  v.  Warren,  47 
Iowa,  47, 51. 

5  Ackley  v.  Westervelt,  86  N.  Y.  448,  453  ;  post,  i  387. 

6  Vail  V.  Meyer,  71  Ind.  ICO,  163. 

7  Sliaw  V.  Thompson,  16  Pick.  178,  200 ;  26  Am.  Dec.  655. 

8  Discussed  ante,  {I  64,  81,  95. 

9  Piatt  V.  Hawkins,  43  Conn.  139, 143. 

I  382.  Contracts  of  married  women  alone  and  jointly 
with  thsir  husbands.  —  The  joinder  of  a  husband  with 
his  wife  does  not,  independently  of  statute,  affect  her 
capacity  to  contract,'  for  the  status  of  married  women 
cannot  be  destroyed  by  agreement ;  ^  so  that  the  joint 
bond'  or  note*  of  husband  and  wife  is  the  note  or  bond 
of  the  husband  alone.  But  a  husband's  joinder  in  his 
wife's  disposition  of  property  to  which  he  is  entitled 
by  hiS  marriage  rights  makes  such  disposition  effect- 
ual.^ His  joinder  may  be  required  by  statute,^  and  in 
such  cases  he  may  so  contract  as  not  to  bind  himself,' 
this  being  the  effect  of  his  joinder  in  Louisiana.*    When 


\    383  SPECIAL,   KINDS   OF   CONTRACTS.  5(34 

he  joins,  his  wife  is  not  discharged  of  her  obligation  by 
the  adjudication  that  he  is  a  bankrupt.^  Whether  a 
wife  must  have  her  liusband's  joinder  to  a  contract  with 
reference  to  her  separate  property  when  she  cannot 
dispose  of  such  property  without  his  joinder,  does  not 
seem  to  be  settled  ;  some  cases  seem  to  infer  the  nega- 
tive,^" while  others  point  towards  tlie  affirmative.'^  It 
is  a  general  rule  that  a  married  woman  cannot  bind  by 
contract  property  whieli  she  cannot  dispose  of.i'^ 

1  Marshall  v.  Eutton,  8  Term  Rep.  .545, 540  ;  infra,  notes  3,  4. 

2  Stewart  M.  &,  D.  \\  172,  181. 

3  Borrance  v.  Scott,  3  Whart.  309,  313 ;  31  Am.  Dee.  .509  ;  post,  \  384. 

4  Cummings  v.  Wilkie,  3  Grant  Cas.  140,  147  ;  post,  \  385. 

5  See  Palmer  v.  Davis,  2.S  X.  Y.  242,  247  ;  ante,  \  ^48. 

6  See  more  fully,  7X)x^  ?  309. 

7  B}'  expresslj-  reserving  his  immunity. 

8  Lehman  !•.  Barrow,  23  La.  An.  185, 188. 

9  Alters  c.  Forbes,  59  Md.  374,  ."Ca 

10  Thomas  v.  Passage,  .54  Ind.  100, 113  ;  Major  v.  Svmmes,  19  Ind. 
117, 120  ;  Ward  v.  Servoss,  15  Abb.  Pr.  279,  280. 

11  Matthews  r.  Murehison,  17  Fed.  Rep.  700,  767;  Pierce  v.  Osman, 
79  Ind.  250, 260 ;  Hall  r.  Eccleston,  37  Md.  510,  .520  ;  Townslev  v.  Chapin, 
12  Allen,  470,  479 ;  Cozzens  v.  Whitney,  3  R.  I.  79,  83  ;  post,  \  407. 

12  Discussed  ante,  \  206. 

\  383.  Purchases  and  sales  of  marriod  women.  —  Gener- 
ally speaking,  a  married  woman  cannot  contract  to 
buy  or  sell  property,^  because  a  contract  to  buy  is  a 
mere  personal  contract, ^  and  a  contract  to  sell  is  not 
one  of  the  modes  usually  specified  for  the  disposition 
of  married  Avomcn's  property.*  Still,  an  agreement  to 
sell  is  a  contract  Avith  reference  to  the  property,  and 
may  be  valid  as  such.*  But  with  a  married  woman's 
actual  purchases  and  sales  it  is  different.  It  is  not  one 
of  her  privileges  to  buy  without  paying,^  and  therefore 
where  she  may  acquire  by  purchase,*  she  may  h\\\  on 
credit,  and  be  bound  for  the  purchase  money.'  A 
promise  to  pay  for  separate  property  is  a  contract  with 
respect  to  her  .separate  property.^    So  if  she  follows 


565  SPECIAL,   KINDS   OF   CONTRACTS.  g    354 

tho  modes  proscribed  she  niaj'-  sell  her  property,*  and 
is  bound  by  her  acceptance  of  any  consideration,'"  as 
when  in  part  payment  she  took  the  release  of  a  debt  of 
her  husband."  If  her  sale  is  void,  and  the  purchaser 
has  paid  her  the  purchase  money,  it  is  generally  settled 
that  he  must  boar  the  loss ;  '*  she  may  recover  the  i)rop- 
erty  without  restoring  the  purchase  money ,'^  though  in 
some  cases  this  has  been  denied.'* 

1  Johnston  r.  Jones,  12  Men.  B.  326,  329.  See  Morrison  v.  Kiiistra, 
55  Miss.  71,  74;  Rose  v.  Bell,  38  Barb.  25,  27;  De  Hay  v.  liennis,  H 
Eicii.  Eq.  27 

2  Rose  ?'.  Bell,  3S  Barb.  25,  27.    See  rtnte,  ??  223,  373,  370,  SSO. 

3  Walker  v.  Owen,  79  Mo.  2G4,  2fiS  ;  post,  I  -107. 

4  Baker  v.  Hathwav,  5  Allen,  103, 104, 103 ;  Diirfee  r.  McClurg,  fi 
Mich.  223,  232  ;  Albin  v.  Lord,  39  N.  H.  196,  202. 

5  Strong  V.  Waddell,  56  Ala.  471,  473  ;  ante,  ?  223. 

6  Discussed  ante,  H  223,  373. 

7  Davton  v.  Walsh,  47  Wis.  113,  120 ;  32  Am.  Rep.  757 ;  Tiemeyer  v. 
Turnquist,  85  N.  Y.  516,  521  ;  39  Am.  Rep.  674  ;  ante,  U  223,  273. 

8  Messcr  v.  Smith,  53  N.  H.  298,  299  ;  ante,  i  .".72. 

9  Discussed  ante,  U  205,  236  ;  post,  U  394-40!*. 

10  Meiley  v.  Butler,  26  Ohio  St.  535,  537 ;  post,  I  391. 

11  Rosenthal  v.  Mayhugh,  33  Ohio  St.  155,  1G5. 

12  Discussed  ante,  §  368  ;  post,  ?  412. 

13  Alexander  v.  Saulsbury,  37  Ala.  375,  378  ;  Wood  r.  Terry,  30  Ark. 
385,  393  ;  Oglesby  v.  Pasco,  7.i  111.  164, 170  ;  Glidden  v.  Strupler,  52  P^. 
St.  400,  404  ;  McLaurin  v.  Wilson,  16  S.  C.  402,  410  ;  ixjst,  i  41.5. 

14  Pilcher  r.  Smith,  2  Head,  203,  211  ;  jwst,  §  41.5. 

g  384,  Covenants  and  bonds  of  married  women.  —  Gen- 
erally a  married  woman's  seal  adds  nothing  to  the  valid- 
ity of  her  contract,  it  does  not,  for  example,  estop  her 
as  to  the  consideration.^  Her  covenants,  like  her  sim- 
ple contracts,  Avere  void  at  common  law;^  no  judg- 
ment or  damages  could  be  recovered  on  them  at  law,^ 
nor  has  any  case  presented  itself  in  which  one  of  them 
has  been  enforced  in  equity.*  By  statute  she  is  some- 
times exijressly  authorized  to  covenant,  and  on  such  a 
covenant  she  is  liable  at  law,"  But  statutes  authoriz- 
ing her  to  convey,  to  make  deeds,  etc,  do  not  render 

II.  &  W.  — 48. 


^    384  SPECIAL,   KINDS   OF   CONTRACTS.  5G6 

valid  her  covenants  in  snch  deeds,  etc,*  r-,o  that  a  war- 
ranty deed  of  a  married  woman  is  no  better  than  a 
quit-claim  deedJ  Still  a  covenant  for  title  in  a  deed  of 
her  property  may  be  valid  as  a  contract  "  with  respect " 
thereto  ;  ^  and  covenants  for  purposes  immediately  con- 
nected with  tlie  use,  etc.,  of  her  property  may  be  valid 
under  her  implied  powers.®  Tliere  are  cases  in  which 
a  married  woman  has  been  lield  estopped  by  her  cove- 
nants, though  she  could  not  have  been  held  liable  in 
damages  for  tlie  broach  thereof.^"  So  her  bonds  were 
void ;  ^*  tliough  in  equity,  one  to  secure  purchase 
money  was  held  valid  as  to  the  property  purchased,'^ 
and  one  expressly  charging  her  separate  property  may 
be  valid."  Nor  can  she  file  a  bond  in  a  judicial  pro- 
ceeding" unless  expressly  authorized.'^ 

1  Radford  v.  Carwile,  13  W.  Va.  573,  683. 

2  Cruzen  v.  McKaig,  57  Md.  454,  462 ;  Martin  v.  Dwelly,  6  "Wond. 
9,  13  ;  21  Am.  Dec.  243  ;  Pilcher  v.  Smith,  2  Head,  208,  211, 

3  Porter  v.  Bradley,  7  R.  I.  538,  542, 

4  See  Pilcher  v.  Smith,  2  Head,  208,  211. 

5  AVorthington  v.  Cooke,  52  Md.  207,  307. 

6  Whitbeck  r.  Cook,  15  Johns.  483,  4  )0  ;  8  Am.  T>oo.  C72.  H.  P., 
Botsford  V.  Wilson,  75  111.  i:i3,  ]:;4  ;  AldridK  ■  r.  Biirlisoa,  3  Bliickf.  201  ; 
Griner  v.  Butler,  61  Ind.  .362,  366  ;  28  Am.  Hep.  CT'i ;  Nuiinall  r.  White, 
3  Met.  (Ky.)  584,  5%^■,  Preston  v.  Evans,  5<;  Ml,  47fl,-4!tl;  Bohford,  V. 
Pearson,  7  Allen,  504,  .^15  ;  Hovoy  v.  .''mlth,  2:  ."^^ch.  170, 173  ;  Oront  v. 
Townsend,  2  Hill,  .551;  Sawyer -i'.  Little,  UVt.  •::4.  Contra,  Nelson 
V  Harwood,  3  Call,  3'jl ;  infra,  n.  10. 

7  Botsford  v.  Wilson,  75  111.  133, 134.    (By  statute.) 

8  Richmond  v.  Tibbies,  26  Iowa.  474,  4^1 ;  Bosfo-.-l  r.  Pearson,  7 
Allen,  504,  .505  ;  ante,l  '-72.  Not  a  covenant  in  her  husband's  deed: 
Griffin  v.  Sheffield,  38  Miss.  3.53,  302. 

9  Kolls  V.  De  Lever,  41  Barb.  203,  211  ;  Houghton  v.  Milbourne,  54 
Wis.  554,  564  ;  ante,  I  373. 

10  Davis  V.  Tinsrle,  8  Men.  B.  .543;  Fowler  v.  Shearer,  7  Mass.  14, 
21;  Nash  r.  Spofford,  10  Met.  l'J2 ;  Calcord  v.  Swan,  7  Mass.  201; 
Wadlcigh  )■.  (Jlines,  6  N.  H.  17  ;  23  Am.  Dec.  705 ;  Hill  v.  We.st,  8  Ohio, 
222,  2J5  ;  Fletcher  v.  Coleman,  2  Head,  384. 

11  Wilson  %K  Fuller,  60  How.  Pr.  480,  481  ;  Huntley  v.  V/hltner,  77 
N.  C.  392,  393  ;  Schnyder  r.  Noble,  94  Pa.  St.  286,  289. 

12  Schnyder  v.  Noble,  94  Pa.  St.  286,  289. 

13  Woolscy  V.  Brown,  11  Hun,  .52,  53  ;  infra,  n.  1.5. 

14  Ward  V.  Whitney,  12  Phila.  246. 

15  Woolsey  v.  Brown,  74  X.  Y.  82,  84  ;  supra,  n.  IZ. 


567  SPECIAL    KINDS    OF   CONTRACTS.  §    385 

^  385.  Promissory  notos  of  married  womon.  —  At  com- 
mon law  the  promissory  noto  of  a  married  woman  was 
void ;  *  a  mortgage  for  the  solo  purpose  of  securing  it 
Avas  void  ;  ^  if  made  joinllj'-  with  another  it  was  void  as 
to  her ,^  but  valid  as  to  ]icr  co-promissor ;  *  so  as  to  a 
surety ;  3  it  was  equally  void  in  the  liands  of  bona  fide 
assignees  for  value  without  notice;*'  by  accepting  a 
note  from  a  married  woman  purchaser  a  A'cndor  did 
not  lose  his  lien.^  Now  a  party  endeavoring  to  enforce 
a  promissory  note  must  show  that  it  falls  Avithin  some 
equitable  or  statutory  exception ;  ^  in  Michigan,  for 
example,  it  must  be  shoAvn  that  it  was  for  something 
connected  Avith  her  separate  estate  ;'  i:i  Louisiana,  that 
it  benefited  her.i"  Under  an  act  enabling  a  married 
Avoman  to  contract  as  if  sole,  she  niay  make  a  promis- 
sory note,"  and  A'alidly  indorse  a  note  of  her  hus- 
band's firm,''^  and  execute  a  note  in  blank, ^^  and  be  lia- 
ble, though  her  husband  joined  Avith  her  and  has  been 
adjudged  a  bankrupt. ^^  Under  an  act  enabling  her  to 
contract  Avith  reference  to  her  separate  property,  a  note 
with  reference  to  something  else  is  not  valid  ;'^  but  a 
note  for.reimirs  on  the  same  is  A'alid.'®  In  equity  her 
note  might  be  a  charge,  as  any  other  promise  to  pay 
might.'"  At  common  law  she  could  in  her  own  name 
indorse  a  note  draAvn  to  her  order,  Avith  her  husband's 
consent,'^  and  her  said  indorsement  passed  a  good 
title ;  '^  and  his  said  consent  could  be  indirectly 
proved ;  '^  but  she  could  not  be  liable  as  indorser.^' 
Under  a  statute  enabling  her  to  dispose  of  her  separate 
property  jointly  Avith  her  husband,  liis  joint  indorse- 
ment of  her  separate  note  Avas  not  required,  but  onl}'  his 
consent  express  or  imijlied.^''  And  she  can  be  liable  as 
indorser  only  when  she  can  be  liable  as  maker. ^^  Her 
acceptance  of  a  bill  giA'en  for  the  debt  of  another  is  AOid, 
Avhero  she  cannot  bind  herself  for  the  debt  of  another.'* 


g    386  SPECIAL   KIND13   OF   CONTRACTS.  568 

1  Vance  v.  Wells,  6  Ala.  7^7  ;  Simpers  i'.  Sloan,  5  Cal.  4.i7,  458  ; 
Taylor  v.  Boarrtman,  92  III.  5i56,  "16? ;  Jones  v.  Crosthwaite,  17  Iowa, 
393',  3'J6  ;  Shannon  v.  Canney,  4-1  >'.  H.  5!)3,  ')94  ;  ante,  i  356. 

2  Hodges  V.  Price,  13  Fla.  342,  343  ;  Sperry  v.  Diclilnson,  82  Ind. 
132,  135. 

3  Davis  V.  Foy,  15  Miss.  64,  G7. 

4  Eobinson,  11  Bush,  174,  173,  ISO. 

5  Willingham  v.  Leake,  7  Baxt.  453,  457. 

6  Kenton  v.  McClellan,  43  Mich.  564,  505 ;  Cooley  v.  Barcroft,  43 
K.  J.  L,.  363,  366. 

7  Willingham  t'.  Leake,  7  Baxt.  453,  457. 

8  Buhleri).  Jennings,  4ft  Mioh.  538, 539;. Saratoga  1'.  Prnyn,90N.Y. 
250,  250. 

9  Buhlcr  V.  Jennings,  43  Mich.  538,  539. 

10  Taylor  v.  Carlisle,  2  La.  An.  579,  580. 

11  Messer  v.  Smyth,  58  N.  H.  298,  299.  See  Marlow  v.  Barlew,  53 
Cal.  456,  453 ;  WooJ  i'.  Oxford,  52  Cal.  412  ;  Kenworthy  v.  Sawyer,  125 
Ma£3.  28. 

12  Kenworthy  i>.  Sawyer,  125  Mass.  28. 

13  Hord  V.  Taubman,  79  Mo.  101,  103 ;  Morrison  i'.  Thistle,  67  Mo. 
5'36,  GOO. 

14  Goodnow  r.  Hill,  125  Mass.  587. 

15  Kenton  v.  McClellan,  43  Mich.  554,  563  ;  ante,  I  370. 

16  Parker  v.  Kane,  4  Allen,  343,  347  ;  ante,  U  372,  373. 

17  Hord  V.  Taubman,  73  Mo.  101,  103  ;  ante,  U  206, 237. 
13    Meakens  v.  IIo:iighe,  17  Mo.  237,  300. 

19  Stevens  v.  Beals,  10  Cush.  291.  293. 

20  McClain  v.  Weidemoyer,  25  Mo.  36i,  3C7. 

21  Norris  v.  Lantz,  18  Md.  260,  263  ;  ante,  I  350. 

22  Whitridge  v.  Barry,  42  Md.  140  ;  Trader  v.  Lowe,  45  Md-  1. 

23  See  Shannon  v.  Canney,  44  N.  H.  532,  533. 

24  Cooley  v.  Barcroft,  43  X.  J.  L.  363,  366. 

§  386.  Beleases  and  receipts  of  married  women.  —  A 
release  is  a  contract,  and  works  as  an  e^topijel,  while  a 
receipt  is  a  mere  statement — a  mere  admission  of  pay- 
ment, and  not  conclusive.  When  a  married  woman  is 
entitled  to  certain  property,  her  sole  receipt  therefor, 
unless  impeached,  is  a  perfectly  good  discharge  ;  ^  the 
receipt  of  her  husband,  except  as  her  agent  in  fact, 
being,  on  the  other  hand,  worthless.^  But  a  married 
woman  is  not  bound  by  a  seal,^  is  not  estopped,*  where 
she  could  not  contract ;  and  as,  if  she  accepted  part  of 
her  property  for  the  whole,  or  something  in  jjlaco  of 


569  SPECIAL   KINDS   OF   CONTRACTS.  §    387 

her  legal  rights,  she  would  really  dispose  of  such  rights 
in  wliole  or  in  part,  lier  release  is  not  valid  except  as  a 
receipt,  unless  she  can  contract  as  if  unmarried,^  or  has 
full  power  of  disposition  over  tlie  rights  released.*  At 
common  law  slie  could  give  neither  release  nor  receipt 
as  her  legal  existence  Avas  gone,'  and  lier  present  prop- 
erty rights  vested  in  her  husband.® 

1  See  Gore  u.  Carl,  47  Conn.  291,2!)^;  Windsor  v.  Bell,  61  Ga.  fi71, 
67-J  ;  Nevins  v.  Gourlev,  'Jo  111.  20f>,  213  ;  Trader  v.  Lowe,  45  Md.  1  ; 
Keud  V.  Earle,  12  Gray,"  423,  425  ;  Early  v.  Rolfe,  95  Pa.  8t.  58,  fiO. 

2  Rleper,  70  Mo.  352,  45S.     Consult  ante,  U  84-80. 

3  Radford  v.  CarwUe,  13  W.  Va.  573,  5S3  ;  ante,  ?  384. 

4  Powell,  98  Pa.  St.  403,  413  ;  post,  5J  412,  415. 

5  Con.sult  ntite,  I  071. 

6  Consult  ante,  ??  205-207,  233-239,  370,  372,  ,373. 

7  Kelso  t'.  Tabor,  52  Barb.  125,  128  ;  nnte,  §  357. 

8  Moblev  1'.  Leophart,  47  Ala.  2.57,  2G1.  See  Kidwell  v.  Kirk- 
patrick,  70  Mo.  214,  216  ;  ante,  U  141-183. 

§  387.  Married  women's  contracts  for  rent,  repairs,  and 
family  expenses.  —  At  common  law  a  married  woman 
could,  of  course,  not  loaso  property,  and  in  lier  lease- 
holds her  husband  had  very  full  rights.^  When  she 
can  lease  by  statute  expressly,  she  is  liable  for  Vaq  rent 
at  law,^  A  lease  is,  in  fact,  the  purchase  of  a  term,  and 
a  married  woman  is  liable  for  the  rent  just  as  she  would 
be  for  purchase  money.'  If  she  can  lease,  she  is  liable 
on  an  implied  promise  for  the  use  and  occupation  of 
premises  which  she  holds  after  the  exjiiration  of  the 
lease,  and  this  though  her  husband  and  family  are 
living  with  her.*  For  repairs  on  her  property  at  com- 
mon law  she  was  in  no  way  liable,^  and  even  for  re- 
pairs on  hor  equitable  separate  estate,  she  was  liable 
only  if  she  made  the  contract  in  such  a  way  as  to  bind 
her  said  estate.*  From  her  mere  knowledge  that  re- 
pairs were  being  made  on  her  property  at  her  hus- 
band's request,  no  promise  on  her  part  to  pay  therefor 
can  be  implied.'    But  when  she  is  collecting  the  rents 


§   387  SPKCIAL   KINDS   OF   CONTRACTS.  570 

of  lier  separate  pi-operty,  and  allows  out  of  them  for 
repairs,  she  is  bound.^  So  a  contract  for  repairs  is 
bonefieialto  her  estate,^  and  is  a  contract  with  refer- 
once  thereto,'"  and  is  a  contract  which,  owing  to  her 
ownership  of  laer  separate  property,  slie  may  by  im- 
plication njalie.i'  Fi'om  a  purchase  by  tlie  wife  of 
family  supplies,  a  promise  to  pay  on  the  part  of  tlio 
husband  and  not  of  tlie  wife  is  implied.'^  If  slie  ex- 
pressly contracts  to  pay  tlierefox-,  slie  is  liable  only  if 
she  is  liable  generally  on  her  contracts,*^  or  expressly 
charges  her  estate.'*  For  a  purchase  of  family  neces- 
saries is  not  of  itself  a  contract  with  reference  to  her 
separate  estate,'^  nor  is  it  a  contract  which  she  can 
make  by  virtue  of  her  powers  implied  from  her  owner- 
ship of  her  proi^erty.'s  In  some  States  her  property  is 
made  jointly  liable  with  her  husband's  for  all  family 
supi:)lies,"  but  this  is  a  liability  of  her  property  and  not 
of  herself.'* 

1  Discussed  ante,  ?  145. 

2  Cruzen  v.  McKiiig,  57  Mfl.  •154,  462 ;  Worthlngton  v.  Cooke,  52 
Mil.  2!)7,  :«)S. 

3  Bush  V.  Babbitt,  25  Hun,  213, 214  ;  ante,ll^'\  283. 

4  Ackley  v.  Westervelt,  83  N.  Y.  448,  453. 

5  Crane  v.  Kelley,  7  Alien,  250,  251, 

fi  See  Wilson  v.  Jones,  40  IMd.  34;),  357,  358. 

7  BickforU  v.  Dane,  53  >\  II.  185,  186. 

8  Cheney  i'.  Pierce,  38  Vt.  515. 

9  See  Batchelder  v.  Sargent,  47  N.  H.  262,  266. 

10  Vail  V.  Meyer,  71  Ind.  159, 164 ;  ante,  §  ."72. 

11  Parker  v.  Kane,  4  Allen,  346,  317  ;  ante,  5  373. 

12  Shaw  V.  Thompson,  16  Pick.  I'JS,  200. 

13  Yates  v.  Survey,  65  Me.  221,  222.  See  Cummlngs  ?'.  Miller,  3 
Grant  Cas.  146, 147. 

14  See  Radford  v.  Carwile,  13  W.  Va.  573,  601  ;  nutc,  ?J  203, 207,  237. 

15  Schneider  v.  Garland,  1  Mackey,  .350;  ante,  J  372. 

16  Thomas  r.  Passage,  54  Ind.  100, 114  ;  ante,  ?  373. 

17  Childess  v.  Mann,  33  Ala.  20S,  207  ;  Van  Platen  v.  Krueger,  10  111. 
App  627,  629;  Fitzgerald  v.  McCartv,  53  Iowa,  702,  71i) ;  Bergen  x\ 
Forsythe,  17  Mon.  B.  551,  555  ;  J^ee  v.  Morris,  3  Bush,  210,  211. 

18  Frost  V.  Parker,  21  N.  W.  Rep.  507,  509. 


571  SPECIAL    KINDS    OF    CONTRACTS.      §^    338-389 

I  338.  A  married  woman's  submission  to  arbitration. — 
A  submission  to  arbitration  is  a  contract  and  its  valid- 
ity depends  on  the  capacity  of  parties  to  contract ;  ^ 
therefore,  at  common  law,  a  married  woman  could  not 
be  compelled  to  perform  an  award.-  Xow,  a  married 
woman  cannot  submit  to  arbitration  any  rights  which 
she  could  not  dispose  of  by  such  a  contract;^  but  she 
may  submit  claims  arising  out  of  her  equitable  sepa- 
rate estate ;  *  under  a  power  to  manage,  slie  may  sub- 
mit a  claim  arising  in  the  course  of  management;^ 
and  under  a  power  to  dispose,  she  may  submit  any 
claim  to  arbitration,*  Even  though  she  could  not  be 
compelled  to  perform  an  award,  if  she  has  agreed  to 
one,  the  other  party  cannot  relieve  himself  of  his  obli- 
gation by  alleging  her  coverture.' 

1  Spurek  v.  Crook,  19  111.  415,  428. 

■i  Oglesby  v.  Pasco,  79  III.  164, 170. 

3  Spurek  V.  Crook,  19  III.  415,  428  ;  Palmer  v.  Bavls,  28  N. Y.  242, 250. 

4  Palmer  v.  Davis,  28  N.  Y.  242,  2.50. 
.5  Duren  v.  Getchell,  55  Me.  241,  248. 

6  Palmer  v.  Davis,  28  N.  Y.  242,  250. 

7  Palmer  v.  Davis,  28  N,  Y.  242, 248  ;  ante,  ?  3fi8. 

§389.  Married  women's  employmont  of  agents.  —  A 
married  woman's  cai^acity  to  bind  herself  for  the  com- 
pensation of  her  agents  can  hardly  be  said  to  be  coter- 
minous witli  her  capacity  to  act  by  agent.i  But  she 
can  bind  lier  separate  estate  in  equity  for  such  compen- 
sation ;  ^  is  bound  by  contracts  for  labor,  services,  etc., 
"with  respect"  to  her  separate  estate;^  and  when  she 
has  the  power  to  "  have  and  hold  lier  i>roperty  as  if 
unmarried,"  lias  the  incidental  power  to  employ  agents 
to  attend  to  it.^  Her  contracts  for  counsel  fees  are  sep- 
arately discvissed.* 

1  See  discussion  ante,  §  87. 

2  Stev-eus  V.  Keed,  112  Mass.  515,  517;  Owen  v.  Cawlev,  3(1  ?:.  Y. 
600,605. 


gg    390-331         SPECIAL   KINDS   OF   CONTRACTS.  572 

3  Albin  V.  Lord,  39  N.  H.  196,  202  ,  ante,  ?  372. 

4  Leonarrl  i-.  Rogaii,  20  Wis.  340,  342  ;  cuile,  i  o73. 

5  iVM<,  SciTS  OK  Mabkieb  Womkx,  i  403. 

g  390.  Married  women  as  stockholders.  —  A  married 
Avoinan's  subscription  to  stock  is  an  executory  agree- 
ment, and,  as  such,  void  at  common  law;'  but  a  note 
given  for  stock  has  been  held  Ijenelicial  to  lier  separate 
estate,  and  therefore  a  charge  thereupon  ;  -  and  by  stat- 
ute in  some  States,  she  may  be  a  subscriber.'  When  she 
is  holder  of  stock  as  her  separate  property,  she  is  liable 
for  the  assessments  thereupon  as  any  other  person 
is* — the  general  statutes  apply  to  married  women* — 
and  her  liability  is  one  of  principal  and  not  of  surety .^ 

1  Rice  ?'.  Columbus,  32  Ohio  St.  380,  385. 

2  Williams  v.  King,  43  Conn.  569,  572. 

3  WellSf.  Bank,  24  La.  An.  273,274.  See  Cal.  Civ.  Coflf>,  ??  285,  323, 
561 ,  575,  M8  ;  7>o«<,  H^l- 

4  Anderson  v.  Line.  14  Fed.  Rep.  405,  40r. ;  Tlobart  v.  Johnson,  19 
Blatcbf.  35;»,  .',62  ;  The  Reciprocity  Bank,  22  X.  V.  n,  15. 

5  The  Reciprocity  Bank,  22  X.  Y.  9, 15  ;  nnlf.,  ?  369. 

6  Hobart  v.  Johnson,  VJ  Blatchf.  359,  362  ;  pott,  I  391. 

I  391.  Married  women's  contracts  as  surety. — At  com- 
mon law  a  married  woman  could  not  be  a  surety 
because  -she  could  not  contract  at  all.'  In  equity,  though 
in  most  States  a  contract  made  with  intent  to  charge 
equitable  separate  property  therewith  is  enforcible, 
even  if  made  for  the  benefit  of  another,'*  in  some  States 
such  contracts  are  enforced  only  if  beneficial  to  the 
woman  or  tlie  property,  and  suretyship  contracts  are 
void.^  But  the  general  rule  is  that  all  deeds,  mort- 
gages, etc.,  of  a  married  woman,  made  in  at-cordance 
^vith  the  law,  are  valid,  no  matter  whom  they  benefit,* 
for  a  general  power  or  enabling  act  does  not  limit  a 
married  woman  to  contracts  for  her  benefit.*  But  some 
statutes  expressly  except  suretyship  contracts,^  and 
under  these  a  contract  of  a  married  woman  jointly  with 


573  SPECIAL    KINDS   Oy   COXTHACTh.  I    332 

another,  for  his  debt,  is  void  as  to  her  ; '  nor  is  a  contract 
between  lier  and  her  husband  any  consideration  in  fa- 
vor of  the  payee  for  her  indorsement  of  her  husband's 
note.^  And  a  suretyshiji  contract  is  not  a  contract 
"with  reference,"  etc.,  to  her  separate  property  ^^  unless 
it  is  charged  thereon  ;  "^  nor  is  it  a  contract  which  she 
is  empowered  to  make  by  inipLication  from  her  power 
to  hold,  enjoy,  etc."  Her  accejitancc  of  bill  of  exchange 
for  goods  sold  another  is  a  suretyship  contract ; ' '  but 
her  liability  as  stockholder  is  not  the  liability  of  a 
surety.'^  The  rules  are  the  same  whether  a  wife  goes 
surety  for  her  husband  or  for  a  stranger,'^  and  her  lia- 
bilities in  the  former  case  have  already  been  fully 
discussed.^' 

1  Schmidt  V.  Postel,  63  111.  59, 60  ;  miie,  U  1*4.  •"•56. 

2  ilcVe.v  V.  Cantrell,  70  X.  V.  295,237  ;  26  Am.  Rep.  6*5  ;  ante,  J 134. 

3  Perkins  v.  Klliott,  21  X.  J.  Eq.  526,  528,  6:«  ;  ante,  {{  134,  206. 
■1  Comogj-s  V.  Clarke,  44  Md.  lOS,  ill ;  ante,  i  134. 

5  Hart  r.  Grigsby,  H  Bush.  542;  Mayo  r.  lliitcliiiisoii,  57  Me.  54fi  ; 
Miijor  i:  ilolmt-s,  124  Muss.  lOS,  lO.i  ;  Witte  i-.  Wolfe,  lit  S.  C  256,  2«>S, 
26;);  Pel-/!er  i'.  Campbell,  15  S.  C.  5S1,  601;  40  Am.  Rep.  705;  ante, 
a  1:M,  nn 

6  Ga.  Code,  1S73,  J  17S3  ;  ante,  f  134. 

7  Brent  v.  Mount,  65  Ga.  92,  !i;!. 

S    Reed  v.  Buys,  44  Mich.  80,  S2  ;  Richards  r:  Proper,  44  Mlclu  96,  OS. 

0  Reed  i:  Buys,  44  Mich.  SO, 82  ;  State  v.  Scott,  10  Xeb.  83, 87 ;  infra, 
n.  11;  ante,  I  3. 

10  See  State  i-.  Scott,  10  Xeb.  83, 86  ;  Xunn  r.  Glvhan,  45  Ala.  370, 375. 

11  Busscl  r.  People,  39  Mich.  671,  673  ;  Iluvler  v.  Atwood,  26  X.  J. 
Eq.  504,  506  ;  Kavaiiauffh  r.  O'Xeill,  53  Wis.  101,  105 ;  ante,  i  372. 

12  Cooler  V.  Bancroft.  43  X.  J.  L.  303,  :;6.i. 

13  Hobart  i'.  Johnson,  19BIatchf.  359,  362. 

14  2  Bish.  M.  \V.  {  ."71. 

15  See,  therefore,  fully,  ante,  J  134. 

1  892.    Contracts  of  married  womon  in  course  of  trade. — 

■\Vhen  a  statute  authorizes  a  married  women  to  trade, 

she  may  make  all  contracts  which  fall  within  the  usual 

course  of  her  business.' 

1  Barton  »-.  Beer,  S5  Barb.  7s,  SO  :  Wilthaus  t-.  Ludecus.  5  Rich.  Eq 
326,  32'.i.    Discussed  poi-f,  M.\u;ui:i)  WoMiix.TiiAUKas,  i^  464-4*1. 


g      93  SPECIAL   KINDS   OF   CONTRACTS.  574 

I  393.  Miscellaneous  contracts  of  married  women. — 
Special  acts  in  some  States  authorize  special  contracts 
of  married  women,  such  as  contracts  for  tlie  insurance 
of  her  husband's  life,i  and  her  property .^ 

1  Married  Woman's  Act,  18S2,  Englani,  ch.  75,  J  11  ;  Ala.  Code, 
1S76,  ?  2:«:f;  Del.  Kev.  1874,  p.  478;  N.  J.  Rev.  1877,  p.  640;  Vt.  R.  S. 
1S30,  JJ  2^40,  2:}4:j,  2345  ;  W.  Va.  R.  S.  1879,  ch.  122,  H  h,  6. 

2  Bernhelm  v.  Beer,  56  Miss.  14!). 


575  EEEDs  OF  marrip:d  womkn.  I  394 

'  CHAPTER  XXII. 

DKEDS  OF  MARRIED  "WOMEN. 

\  394.  At  common  law. 

{  395.  Under  statutes. 

J  396.  Of  dower. 

\  397.  Of  equitable  separate  property. 

\  398.  Of  statutory  separate  property. 

I  399.  Joinder  of  husband. 

{  <100.  E.xecutlon  by  wife. 

{  401.  Certificate  of  acknowledgment,  etc. 

\  402.  Confirmation  of  invalid  deed  by  wife. 

\  403.  Confirmation  of  invalid  deed  by  statute. 

f  404.  Confirmation  of  invalid  deed  by  equity. 

J  405.  Impeachment  of  married  women's  deeds. 

{  406.  Married  woman's  powers  of  attorney. 

\  407.  Agreements  of  married  women  to  give  deeds. 

{  408.  Miscellaneous  points  as  to  deeds  of  married  women. 

g  394.  Deeds  of  married  women  at  common  law.  —  At 
common  law  a  married  woman  line]  no  legal  existence 
and  no  present  property  right.s,'  and  therefore  her 
deed,  whether  of  dower  *  or  of  her  own  propei'ty,^  was, 
like  her  other  contracts,*  a  mere  nullity.*  She  could 
be  barred  of  her  dower  or  divested  of  her  property 
only  by  line  and  common  recovery.*  P'ines  and  com- 
mon recoveries  have  never  existed  in  this  country,  and 
now  do  not  exist  anywhere,'  but  statutes  have  taken 
their  place.**  In  some  States,  independently  of  statute, 
the  joint  deed  of  husband  and  wife  has  always  been 
recognized  as  if  authorized  by  the  common  law.' 
Whenever  a  wife  held  the  position  of  an  unmarried 
woman,  as  Avhen  her  husband  was  civilly  dead,^"  or 
had  abandoned  the  realm,"  or  as  to  lier  equitable  sepa- 
rate property,'^  she  could  deed  her  own  property  as  if 
unmarried. 


?    335  DEEDS   OF   MARRIED   WOMEN.  576 

1  Blythe  V.  Bargain,  68  Ala.  370,  375  ;  ante,  ??  184,  331,  ^ 

2  Raiiuels  v.  Gehnor,  18  Cent.  L.  J.  182  (Mo.)  ;  ante,  U  270-272. 

3  Gpbb  V.  Rose,  40  Md.  387,  392  ;  Bagley  v.  Emberson,  79  Mo.  139, 
lio ;  post,  U -iO--^*. 

4  Ante,  \\  375,  368. 

5  Gillespie  v.  Worford,  2  Cold.  632,  m%  ;  post,  U  40:-!0J. 

6  Leonis  v.  Lazzarovich,  .55  Cal.  52,  55  ;  Hartley  v.  Fcrrell,  !)  Fla. 
374,  378;  Bressler  v.  Kent,  61  111.  426,  427;  14  Am.  Rep.  67;  Lane  v. 
McKeen,  15  Me.  304,  .305  ;  Lawrence  v.  Heister,  3  Har  &  J.  371,  .377 ; 
Helms  V.  Franciscus,  2  Bland,  544,  563  ;  20  Am.  Dec.  402  ;  Bool  v.  Mix, 
17  Wend.  119, 12!) ;  31  Am.  Dec.  285  ;  Martin  v.  Dwelly,  6  Wend.  9,  12  ; 
21  Am.  Dec.  245  ;  Gillespie  v.  Worford,  2  Cold.  632,  6:J7. 

7  Lawrence  v.  Heister,  3  Har.  &.  J.  371,  377 ;  1  Bish.  M.  W.  ?  587. 

8  Martin  v.  Dwelly,  6  Wend.  9, 12  ;  21  Am.  Dec.  245 ;  post,  I  395. 

9  Manchester  v.  Hough,  5  Mason,  07,  68, 69 ;  Fowler  i\  Shearer,  7 
Mass.  14  ;  Colcad  v.  Swan,  7  Muss.  2J1;  Davey  v.  Turner,  1  Dall.  11, 
13,  14,  17  ;  Albany  v.  Bay,  4  Comst.  9. 

10    See  Rhea  v.  Rhenner,  1  Peters,  105, 107  ;  ante,  ?  .3.58 ;  infra,  n.  11. 

U  Danner  r.  Berthold,  11  Mo.  App.  351,  355  ;  Rosenthal  r.  Mavhutjh, 
33  Ohio  St.  155,  161 ;  ante,  J  358.  But  see  Rhea  v.  Rhenner,  1  Peters, 
105,  107  ;  Beckman  v.  Stanley,  8  Xev.  257,  261. 

12    Miller  v.  Xewton,  23  Cal.  5.54,  567  ;  ante,  ?  205  ;  post,  ?  397. 

I  395.  Deeds  of  married  women  under  statutes.  —  Everj-- 
where  statutes  have  been  passed  relating  to  married 
women's  deeds  of  dower, '  of  the  reversionary  interest 
in  her  realty,^  and  of  her  statutory  separate  estate.' 
These  are  statutes  expressly  referring  to  married 
women,  as  the  general  statutes  do  not  ax^ply  to  their 
deeds,*  unless  they  deed  as  if  unmarried. ^  The  gen- 
eral rule  is  that  a  married  woman  can  convey  her  prop- 
ertj",  except  her  equitable  separate  estate,^  only  in  the 
mode  prescribed  by  statute.'  The  deed  must  be  ac- 
knowledged 8  and  certified  to,^  substantially  as  required 
by  the  statutes,  or  it  is  mere  waste  paper.i" 

1  Chase,  1  Bland,  206.  22S  ;  17  Am.  Dec.  277  ;  ante,  ??  270-272  ;  post, 
I  336. 

2  Helms  v.  Franciscus,  2  Bland,  514,  563  ;  20  Am.  Dec.  402  ;  infra, 
n.  7. 

3  Edwards  v.  Schoeneman,  104  111.  278,  284  ;  post,  I  398. 

4  S.-e  Applegate  v.  Tracy,  9  Dana,  215,  224  ;  Bell  v.  Lyle,  10  Lea, 
44,  45  ;  ante,  ii  13,  36.). 

o    See  Edwards  v.  Schoeneman,  104  HI.  278^  284 
6    Ante,  i  205  ;  post,  i  397. 


577  DEEDS   OF   MARRIED   WOMEN.        §§   336-397 

7  Leonis  v.  Lazzarovich,  55  C'al.  53,  57  ;  Lewis  r.  Waters,  S  Har.  & 
McH.  4M  ;  Schroyer  r.  Xiekell,  •">•')  Mo.  'iW,  -J*;;,  i;s  ;  (iik•hn^^t  r.  liorie, 

1  Dev.  &  B.  Eq.  :«(!,  35:);  Green  r.  Brantoii,  1  Dev.  Eq.  500,  rm ; 
Brown  r.  Farran,  3  Ohio,  IJO,  15'> ;  Itosenthal  r.  Mayliiigli,  .a  Otiio  St. 
155,]')0;  SiJliman  ?'.  Cummins.  13  Ohio,  IIG,  IIH  ;  Gillespie   c.  AVorford, 

2  Cold.  632,  6:«  ;  cases  }^ost,  H  -iO-l,  406,  -,07  ;  ante,  I  23G. 

8  Hepburn  r.  Dubois,  12  Peters,  345,  374  ;  imst,  i  401. 

9  Lane  v.  Dolicv:,  G  McLean,  200  ;  post,  ?  402. 

10  Leonis  ?'.  Lazzarovich,  55  Cal.  52,  .'57;  Mariner  ?'.  Saunders,  5 
Gilm.  125  ;  Cross  v.  Everts,  28  Tex.  523,  532  ;  jiost,  U  402-404. 

g  396.  Deeds  of  married  women  of  dower.  —  Dower  i.s 
not  separate  property  ;i  in  fact,  it  is  not  property  at  all 
during  coverture, ^  and  a  deed  of  it  operates  only  as  a 
release,  and  bj^  "way  of  estoppel.^  This  subject  has 
alread}'  been  fully  discussed. * 

1  Bressler  v.  Kent,  61  III.  426,  428  ;  14  Am.  Rep.  G7  ;  ante,  ?  270. 

2  Moore  v.  Mayor,  8  X.  Y.  110,  113  ;  oO  Am.  Dec.  473  ;  ante,   ?  262. 

3  Rei.Ti'.  Horst,  55  Md.  42,  47  ;  ante,  \  272. 

4  Ante,  \\  270-272. 

\  397.  Deeds  of  married  women  of  equitable  separate 
property.  —  When  a  married  woman  has  the  capacity  to 
deed  her  equitable  separate  property  she  executes  the 
deed,  unless  the  settlement  provides  otherwise,  as  if 
unmarried.'  As  to  whether  or  not  she  has  the  capacity 
there  are  three  rules :  (1)  That  she  has  the  cajiacity 
unless  the  settlement  takes  it  away ;  '^  (2)  that  she  has 
not  the  capacity  unless  the  settlement  gives  it;^  and 
(3)  that  she  has  the  capacity  to  deed  away  her  estate 
during  coverture,  but  not  her  reversion.*  This  has 
been  fully  discussed.'  Her  equitable  property  which 
is  not  separate,  she  must  deed  as  she  does  her  legal  es- 
tates of  the  same  kind." 

1  American  v.  Wadhams,  10  Barb.  597,  602.  S.  P.,  Essex  v.  Atliins, 
14  Ves.  542,  547  ;  Radford  c.  Carwile,  13  W.  \'a.  573, 57.S  ;  ante,  H  202, 205. 

2  Chow  V.  Beall,  13  Md.  348,  360  ;  ante,  203-205. 

3  Swift  V.  Castle,  23  111.  200,  222  ;  ante,  H  203-205. 

4  Radford  r.  Carwile,  13  W.  Va.  573,  682,  683  ;  atitc,  H  20;5-205. 

5  Ante,  U  203-205. 

6  Clayton  v.  Rose,  8")  X.  C.  106,  110;  Young,  7  Cold.  461,  477; 
Hawley  v.  Troyman,  29  Gratt.  728,  730. 

H.  &  W.  — 49. 


Yi  398-399     DEEDS  OP  married  womex.  578 

?  338.  Deads  of  marriod  womoa  of  statutory  separate 
property.  —  The  general  rule  is  that  a  married  woman 
has  no  capacity  to  dispose  of  her  statutory  separate 
lands  unless  this  is  ex^jressly  given  by  statute.'  The 
power  to  dispose  is  not,  for  example,  included  wi'liin 
the  power  to  "  own,  enjoy,  and  possess,  as  if  unmar- 
ried," ■■' and  when  the  capacity  is  not  expressly  given 
her,  she  must  dispose  of  her  statutory  separate  prop- 
erty' in  the  same  way  as  she  would  dispose  of  property 
held  as  at  common  law,^  and  her  invalid  deed  would 
have  no  effect.*  If  the  statute  expressly  gives  her  the 
power  to  dispose  of  her  property',  but  prescribes  some 
particular  mode  of  disposition  —  some  particular  formal- 
ities—  the  deed  must  substantial!}' conform  with  the 
requirements  of  the  statute  or  it  will  be  wholly  void.^ 
If  the  statute  expressly  gives  her  the  power  of  disposi- 
tion, but  names  no  particular  mode  of  execution,  etc., 
she  inaj'  execute  her  deed  as  if  vmmarried,  and  if  it  is 
imperfect,  it  maj'  be  confirmed,  and  will  be  valid  in 
equity,  just  as  the  imperfect  deed  of  an  unmarried 
woman  is.^ 

1  Swift  V.  Lucy,  27  Me.  2S5,  28S  ;  ante,  ?  236. 

2  Parent  !).  CaUerand,  64  111.  97,  93 ;  atite,  U  236,  37::. 

3  Hartley  r.  F?rrell,  9  Fla.  374,  378;  Btessler  v.  Kent,  Gl  111.  426, 
4'::7 ;  14  Am.  Rpp.  67  ;  Scott,  13  Ind.  225,  227  ;  Sliumaker  v.  Johnson,  35 
Inv;i,  33,  35;  Jewett  v.  Davis,  10  Allen,  68,  71;  Young  v.  Snydor,  3 
Grant,  150,  151. 

4  Rogers  v.  Higgins,  4S  HI.  211,  216 ;  Lucas  v.  Cobbs,  1  Dev.  &  B. 
223,  232  ;  jJOst,  'i  404. 

5  .Silliman  v.  Cummins,  13  Ohio,  116, 118 ;  ante,  ?  305,  n.  7. 

6  Edwards  v.  Schoeneman,  101  HI.  278,  2'!4  ;  Scranton  v.  Stewart, 
5-  lad.  68,  89  ;  Silliman  i'.  Cummins,  13  Ohio,  116,  119  ;  post,  \  404. 

I  339.  Toindsr  of  husband  in  daads  of  married  women. — 
The  husband's  joinder  in  liis  wife's  deed  is  generally 
necessary  to  render  It  valid, i  and  is  unnecessary  only 
v.'hen  slie  is  exjiressly  authoriz.ed  to  deed  "as  if  sole," 
or  ''as  if   unmarried."'-    At  common  law  he  had  an 


579  DEEDS   OF    MARRIED    AVOMEX.  ^    399 

actual  estate  to  convej',  and  it  would  seem  that  he  had 
to  join  as  a  co-grantor  ;3  but  Avhen  tlie  whole  estate  is 
vested  in  the  wife,  and  his  assent  is  required  to  prevent 
imposition,*  his  mere  signature  to  the  deed  is  enough, 
and  lie  need  not  be  named  in  the  body  of  the  deed.' 
But  his  assent  cannot  be  proved  bj^  parol,*  althougli, 
where  his  assent  was  required  in  writing,  liis  joinder 
in  a  mortgage  note  was  held  sufficient,  though  he  did 
not  join  in  the  mortgage  at  all.'  The  joint  deed  of  hus- 
band and  wife  need  not  be  executed  at  the  same  time 
and  f)lace.8  Wliether  he  shall  join  is  discretionary 
with  liim,  and  he  cannot  be  compelled  to  join  ;9  so  it  is 
a  personal  right  and  cannot  be  delegated  ; '"  nor  can  he 
honestly  claim  compensation  for  joining."  His  joinder 
is  not  necessary  in  his  Avife's  deed  of  her  equitable  sep- 
arate estate,^^  when  she  has  the  power  to  convey  as  if 
sole, 13  nor  need  he  join  in  her  deed  executed  under  a 
special  power."  Where,  by  statute,  a  husband  must 
join  in  his  wife's  deeds,  she  cannot  AAdthout  him  make 
a  deed  good  in  equity, '» or  a  good  agreement  to  con- 
vey.i^ 

1  Alexander  v.  Saulsburv,  S7  Ala.  ^:i,  .377  ;  Ilartlov  v.  Perrell,  9 
Fla.  374,  37.( ;  Brossler  v.  KcMt,  fil  111.  426,  427  ;  14  Ar.i.  Rep.  fi7  ;  Scott, 
13  Incl.  225,  227;  Shuniukcr  v.  Johnson,  3.5  Io\v:i,  33,  35;  Jewett 
V.  Davis,  10  Alien,  6S,  71 ;  Townsley  r.  Chapiii,  12  Allen,  47(i.  579  ; 
Buchanan  v.  Hazzard,  95  Pa.  ht.  240,  243  ;  Youiij?  v.  Snj-der,  3  Grant. 
150,  151. 

2  Hake  v.  Lawshee,  24  N.  J.  L.  613,  61G  ;  1  Bish.  M.  W.  |  .59.3. 

3  See  Blythe  v.  Dargain,  63  Ala.  .370,  .375  ;  ante,  ??  147,  158. 

4  Dous?las  1'.  Fulda,  50  Cal.  76,  80  ;  Jleagher  r.  Thompson,  49  Cal. 
mi,  131  ;  Fiiiidenwaldt  v.  Mullen,  10  Heisk.  226,  231. 

5  Pease  ?'.  Bridge,  49  Conn.  58,  61 ;  Evans  r.  Summerlin,  19  Fla. 
85S,  801  ;  Chapman  v.  Miller,  12S  Mass.  26),  271 ;  Hills  v.  Bearse,  !) 
Allen,  403,  406;  Stone  v.  Mont?omerv,  35  Miss.  83,  107;  Elliott  v. 
Sleeper,  2  N.  H.  525,  529  ;  Woodward  v.  Seaver,  :«  N.  H.  29,  31 ; 
Bu".v's  r.  Haj'barger,  8  Jones,  76,  81 ;  Friedenwaldt  v.  Mullen.  10 
Heisk.  220,  231. 

6  Buchanan  v.  Hazzard,  95  Pa.  St.  240,  243. 

7  Cormerhais  r.  Wesselhoeft,  114  Mass.  559,  .552. 

8  Ludlow  V.  O'Neill,  2)  Ohio  St.  181, 1S3  ;  post,  {  402. 

9  Stevens  v.  Parish,  2J  Ind.  230, 263. 


g    400  DEEDS  OF   MARRIED   WOMEN.  580 

10  Meagher  v.  Thompson,  49  Cal.  180, 101. 

11  Beaudry  v.  Felch,  47  Cal.  183,  185.  Seo  Mahoney  v.  Mackubin,  54 
Md.  26J. 

12  Burnett  v.  Hawpo,  2"i  Gratt.  481,  437  ;  ante,  U  202-205. 

13  Seo  Edwards  v.  Schoenenian,  101  111.  278,  2S4  ;  ante,  ?  371. 

1 1    Thompson  v.  Murray,  2  Hill  Ch.  204,  211  ;  atite,  §J  202,  205,  211. 

15  Stevens  v.  Parish,  21  Ind.  260,  20'! ;  Miller  v.  Wetherby,  12  Iowa, 
415,  421 ;  Williamson,  18  Mou.  B.  329,  385  ;  Armstrong  v.  Ross,  20  N.J. 
Eq.  lOJ,  120  ;  post,  i  404. 

16  Townsley  v.  Chapin,  12  Allen,  476,  479. 

I  400.  The  execution  of  married  women's  deeds.  — When 
a  married  woman  executes  a  deed  under  a  jjower,  she 
cannot  execute  it  in  blank,  because  she  cannot  execute 
it  tlirough  an  agent.^  For  the  same  reason  she  would 
not  be  bound  by  another's  signing  her  name  in  her 
presence.'''  In  many  States,  though  not  in  as  many  as 
formerly,  the  statutes  provide  that  in  executing  her 
deed  a  married  woman  shall  be  examined  apart  from 
her  husband,  and  having  had  the  nature  of  tJie  deed 
explained  to  her,  acknowledge  that  she  executes  it 
freely,  and  not  through  threats  or  i^ersuadings  of  her 
husband.^  This  was  required  when  a  fine  was  levied 
at  common  law.*  In  other  States  she  may  execute  her 
deed  as  if  sole.^  Whether  a  private  acknowledgment 
is  required  or  not,  Avhen  a  deed  is  executed  under  a 
power  which  i^rescribes  some  acknowledgment,  such 
acknowledgment  as  is  prescribed  is  a  necessary  part  of 
the  deed:*  tliat  is  to  say,  a  deed  without  such  an  ac- 
knowledgment would  not  be  valid  for  any  purpose 
because  not  a  perfect  execution  of  the  power.'  But  if  a 
married  woman  has  full  power  to  dispose  of  her  prop- 
erty, and  no  acknowledgment  is  named  by  the  statute, 
her  making  or  omitting  an  acknowledgment  has  pre- 
cisely the  same  eflect  in  fitting  the  deed  for  record,  or 
rendering  it  valid  only  as  between  the  parties  and  in 
equity,  as  it  would  have  had  had  she  been  unmarried.^ 
So  where  a  privy  examination  is  necessary,  it  is  an 


5S1  DEKDS  OF   MARRIED   WOMEN.  g   401 

essential  x^art  of  the  execution  of  the  deed,'  and  the 
omission  thereof  is  fatal. ^"^  An  exaniinatiou  apart 
means  an  examination  out  of  the  presence  of  her  hus- 
band, so  that  he  cannot  communicate  with  her  by 
Avord,  look,  or  motion. 'i  It  has  been  hold  that  a  privy 
examination  means  an  examination  not  only  out  of  the 
l^resence  of  the  husband,  but  out  of  the  presence  of  any 
one  but  the  officer,'^  but  this  decision  is  probably  not 
sound.i^  The  husband  and  wife  need  not  acknowledge 
at  the  same  time."  A  magistrate  who  is  interested  in 
the  transfer  is  not  competent  to  take  the  acknowledg- 
ment ;  1*  but  his  relationship  to  one  of  the  parties  is  no 
disqualification,  his  certification  not  being  a  judicial 
act.16 

1  Drury  v.  Foster,  2  Wall.  24,  33  ;  Ilord  r.  Tiiubmau,  79  Mo.  101, 
104  ;  ante,  I  304. 

2  Reasoning  In  cases  supra,  n.  1. 

3  See  fully  2  Scribner  Dow.  ch  13. 

4  2  Scribner  Dow.  p.  321. 

5  See  Ind.  R.  S.  ISSl,  I  2938  ;  Iowa  R.  S.  1S30,  ?  1[);!5  ;  Md.  R.  C.  1878, 
p.  483,  I  30  ;  Wis.  R.  S.  1873,  i  2221. 

6  Cross  V.  Everts,  28  Tex.  532 ;  pout,  J  404. 

7  Silliman  v.  Cummins,  13  Ohio,  116, 1 U. 

8  Edwards  v.  Schoeneman,  104  111.  278,  284  ;  Scrantoii  v.  Stewart, 
52  Ind.  63,  89  ;  Silliman  v.  Cummins,  13  Ohio,  116, 119. 

9  Pratt  V.  Battles,  28  Vt.  685,  68.) ;  2  Scribner  Dow.  ch.  13. 

10  Hepburn  v.  Dubois,  12  Peters,  ;>45,  374  ;  pod,  I  404. 

11  Belo  V.  Mayes,  79  Mo.  67,  70. 

12  Sibley  v.  Johnson,  1  Mich.  380,  .384. 

13  See  Belo  v.  Maves,  79  Mo.  67,  70  ;  Jones  v.  Maffet,  5  Serg.  it  R. 
523,  524  ;  Coombes  !'.  Thomas,  57  Tex.  321,  323. 

14  Newell  v.  Anderson,  7  Ohio  St.  12,  10.  Compare  Adams  v. 
Buford,  0  Dana,  40.!,  403. 

15  Brown  v.  Moore,  38  Tex.  645,  648.  S.  P.,  Bank  v.  Conway,  14 
Bank  Reg.  513;  Diissaume  i\  Burnett,  5  Clarke,  95;  Grosbeck  v. 
Seeley,  13  Mich.  330  ;  Withers  v.  Baird,  7  Watts,  227;  Scanlau  v.  Tur- 
ner, 1  Bail.  421. 

16  Lynch  v.  Livingston,  2  Seld.  422,  4;>4. 

?  431.  The  certificate  of  acknowledgment. — The  certifi- 
cate is  the  legal  evidence  of  the  execution  of  the  deed ;  ^ 
and  it  must  show  that  everything  has  been  done  which 


I    4D1  DEEDS   OF    MARRIED   WOMEN.  582 

is  necessary  to  the  validity  of  a  married  woman's  deed.^ 
When  a  privy  examination  is  required  the  certificate 
must  show  that  a  privy  examination  lias  been  had  ;  '^  an 
ordinary  certificate  such  as  is  used  for  a  person  sui  J twis 
will  not  suffice/  nor  will  a  certificate  that  the  acknowl- 
edgment was  "in  due  form"  ;'^  when  the  law  requires 
an  acknowledgment  "  out  of  the  hearing"  of  tlie  hus- 
band, a  certificate  of  an  acknowledgment  "apart" 
from  the  liusband  is  not  sufficient  ;*  so  the  omission  of 
"  known  to  me  "  is  fatal ; '  so,  of  "  for  the  consideration 
and  purposes  therein  set  forth"  ;^  so,  of  "that  it  was 
explained  to  the  wife." ^  Still  the  exact  words  of  the 
statute  need  not  be  used.'"  Thus,  "  freely  and  of  her  own 
accord  "  is  equivalent  to  "freely  as  her  voluntary  act 
and  deed."  '^  If  the  certificate  states  that  she  acknowl- 
edged the  deed  as  a  release  of  dower,  when  in  fact  it 
was  a  deed  of  her  own  projierty,  and  these  words  are 
meaningless,  the  insertion  of  tliem  does  not  destroy 
the  effect  of  the  acknowledgment.'-  The  certificate  is 
prima  facie  evidence  of  all  that  it  states  ;  '^  it  is  not  con- 
clusive as  against  the  wife,  and  she  may  show  that  in 
fact  there  was  no  privy  examination,'*  except,  perliaps, 
when  the  grantee  was  no  party  to,  and  had  no  notice  of, 
the  fraud.'^  But  if  the  certificate  is  insufficient  it  can- 
not be  helped  by  parol  proof,'*  or  reformed  in  equity,'^ 
except  where  this  is  expressly  authorized  by  statute,  as 
in  California.'^  And  without  a  proper  certificate  the 
deed  is  absolutely  void."  unless  tlie  facts  not  certified 
to  were  not  essential  to  its  validity.^" 

1  Young  V.  Duvall,  lOJ  U.  S.  573,  577  ;  infra,  n.  13. 

2  Gill  V.  FauntlfToy,  8  Mon.  B.  177,  17S,  ISO,  182, 183.  S.  P.,  Toulmin 
V.  Heiili'lhcTsr,  32  Miss.  2fi8  ;  Has;bv  »'.  Emberson,79Mo.  139  ;  Brownder, 
U  Ohio  «t.  58J  ;  Mulliiis  v.  Wea,ver,  57  Tex.  6,  6. 

3  Belo  1'.  Maves,  73  Mo.  67,  70.  8.  P.,  Flanagan  f.  Young,  3*  Har.  & 
McH.  38  ;  Howell  v.  Ashmore,  22  N.  J.  L.  2Cil,  264  ;  Jourdan,  9  Serg.  & 
K.  268  ;  11  Am.  Dec.  724. 

4  McLaurin  i'.  Wilson,  16  S.  C.  402,  403. 


583  DEEDS   OF   MARRIED   WOMEN.  g   401 

5  Lucas  V.  Cobb,  1  Dev.  &  B.  228,  233. 

6  ButterfieKi  v.  Bealo,  3  Ind.  203,  207. 

7  Cover.  Cather,  23  III.  G.'M,  6-11  ;  O'Ferrall  f.  Simplot,  4  Greene 
162,  163.     Compare  Bell  r.  Lyle,  10  Lea,  -U,  4.y. 

8  Jacowuj'  V.  Gault,  20  Ark.  190,  lOJ. 

9  Boiling  1'.  Teel,  76  Va.  •1S7,  4'M  ;  Chauven  v.  Wagner,  18  Mo. 
521  ;  Garrett  v.  Moss,  22  111.  ;i63.  Compare  Belo  v.  Mayes,  79  Mo. 
67,  71. 

10  Muir  V.  Gallaway,  61  Cal.  40S,  502.  S.  P.,  Batten  v.  Bigelow,  1 
Peters  V.  C.  452  ;  Tubbs  v.  Gatewood,  26  Ark.  128  ;  Calumet  i\  Kussell, 
68  HI.  426  ;  Gill  r.  Fauutlerov.  S  Mon.  B.  177,  IsO-ls:! ;  (;re£;ory  v.  Ford,  5 
Moil.  B.  471,481  ;  Hollingswortli  r.  MrDoiiald,  2  liar,  .t  J.  230;  3  Am. 
Dec.  .54.1 ;  Belo  v.  Maves,  7:i  JIo.  (.7,  7ii :  l.uv.-  r.  Taylor,  26  Miss.  567  ; 
Sharp  V.  Hamilton,  12  X.J.  L.  10;i ;  Jleriium  r.  Harseii,  2  Barb.  Ch. 
2:f2  ;  Brown  v.  Farrau,  3  Ohio,  140,  l.'w  ;  Churchill  v.  Monroe,  1  K.  I. 
209. 

11  Dundas  v.  Hitchcock,  12  How.  2.56. 

12  Evans  v.  Summerlin,  19  Fla.  858,  863 ;  Hills  v.  Bearse,  9  Allen, 
403,  406  ;  Delossers  v.  Paston,  19  Mo.  425  ;  Stone  r.  Montgomerj-,  35 
Miss.  83,  107.     Compare  ante,  j  272. 

13  Young  V.  Duvall,  lOa  U.  S.  .573,  577.  S.  P.,  Carpenter  v.  Dexter,  8 
Wall.  513  ;  Rhoade-s  v.  Belin,  4  Wash.  C.  C.  714  ;  Smith  v.  McGuire,  67 
Ala.  34,37;  Barnet  v.  Prauskauer,  62  Ala.  486;  Blackman  v.  Hawks, 
89  111.  512  ;  Licknow  r.  Harding,  65  111.  505  ;  Merrick  r.  Wallace,  19  111. 
4*6  ;  Tracy  v.  Jenks,  15  Pick.  465  ;  Thompson  v.  Morgan,  6  Minn.  295  ; 
Thurman  v.  Cameron,  24  Wend.  87  ;  Heeter  v.  Glascow,  89  Pa.  St.  79; 
infra,  notes  14, 15. 

14  Jackson  v.  Hayner,  12  Johns.  469,  472.  S.  P.,  Russell  v.  Bi^ptist, 
73  111.  337  ;  Eyster  v.  Hathaway,  50  111.  521 ;  Ford  v.  Teal,  7  Bush,  156  ; 
Central  v.  Copeland,  18  Md.  305  ;  Fisher  r.  Meisler,24  Mich.  447  ;  Mas- 
tin  V.  Hallev,  61  Mo.  llifi;  Marsh  )•.  Mitchell,  26  N.J.  Eq.  497  ;  Priest  f. 
Cummings,  16  Wend.  617,  631  ;  jmst,  i  40.5. 

15  Davis  V.  Kennedy,  58  Tex.  516,  519.  See  Drurv  r.  Foster,  2  Wall. 
24,;54:  O'Ferrallr.  Simpiot,4Iowa,.3,Sl  ;  Dodder.  HoUinsliead,  6  Minn. 
25;  Sfone  1'.  Montgomery,  35  Miss.  8!  ;  Williams '■.  Uobsoii,  6  01iio  St. 
510,515;  Baldwin  v.  Snowden,  U  Ohio  St.  203  ;  .Shrader  r;.  Decker,  9 
Pa.  St.  14  ;  Hays,  5  Rich.  31  ;  Hartley  v.  Frost,  6  Tex.  208  ;  Harklns  v. 
Forsythe,  11  Leigh,  294  ;  j^st,  i  40.5. 

16  Jourdan,  9  Serg.  &  R.  268,  274  ;  11  Am.  Dec.  724.  S.  P.,  Elliott  v. 
Piersol,  1  McLean,  11;  1  Peters,  328;  Pendleton  v.  Bulton,  3  Conn. 
406,  412  ;  Havdeu  r.  Westcott,  11  Conn.  129  ;  Martin  v.  Hargardine.  46 
111.  322,  :?:5 ;  "O'Ferrall  v.  Simplot,  4  Iowa,  .381  ;  Blackburn  v.  Penning- 
ton, 8  Mon.  B.  217;  .Vdams  >:  Bnford,  6  Dana.  406,  408;  Ridgely  v. 
Howard,  3  Har.  &  McII.  321  ;  Silliman  v.  Cuniniiiis,  13  Ohio,  116,  118  ; 
Smith  v.  Hunt,  13  Ohio,  260,  268  :  42  Am.  Dec.  201  ;  Harty  r.  Ladd,  3 
Oreg.  3.53  ;  Watson  v.  Bailey,  1  Binn.  470  ;  2  Am.  Dec.  462  ;  Barnet,  15 
Serg.  &  R.  729 ;  16  Am.  Dec.  516. 

17  Barnett  v.  Shackleford,  6  Marsh.  J.  J.  532,  534  ;  22  Am.  Dec.  100. 
S.  P.,  Lindley  v.  Smith,  .58  111.  250  ;  Blackburn  v.  Pennington,  8  Mon. 
B.  217;  Wannell  v.  Kern,  51  Mo.  1.50  ;  Silliman  v.  Cummins,  13  Ohio, 
116, 119  ;  post,  i  404. 

18  Hutchinson  v.  Ainsworth,  03  Cal.  286,  288 

19  Smith  1'.  McGuire,  67  Ala.  34,37;  Leonis  v.  -azzarovich,  55  Cal. 
52,  56  ;  generally  cases  cited  in  this  section. 

20  Scranton  v.  Stewart,  52  Ind.  68,  90  ;  ante,  i  400, 


I   402  BEEDS   OF   MARRIED   WOMEN.  584 

I  432.  Confirmation  of  deeds  of  marriad  women  by  act 
of  party.  —  If  a  married  woman's  deed  is  imperfectly 
executed,  it  is  usually  utterly  void,'  and  cannot,  there- 
fore, be  ratified  by  her  ;2  her  subsequent  assent  to  it,^ 
during*  or  after  coverture,^  or  her  parol  adoption  of  it,^ 
or  her  declarations  of  her  willingness  to  do  everything 
necessarj'-  to  make  it  valid,"  give  it  no  validity.  To 
give  it  effect  it  must  bo  re-acknowledged  and  deliv- 
ered^—  it  must  be  made  a  new  deed^ — and  in  such 
case  it  does  not  relate  back,  but  takes  effect  only  from 
the  date  of  sucli  re-acknowledgment  and  delivery;'*' 
and  so  it  is  defeated  by  an  intermediate  valid  deed  of 
the  same  property."  As  even  when  a  joint  deed  of 
husband  and  wife  is  required,  they  need  not  both  exe- 
cute it  at  the  same  time,'-  and  a  married  woman  rrnxj 
re-acknowledge  and  record  a  deed  which  she  has  pre- 
viously defectively  executed.'^  Such  new  execution 
may  be  made  during  coverture,'*  or  after  the  husband's 
death ;  '^  and  though  no  act  in  pais  during  coverture 
will  estop  her  from  setting  up  tlie  invalidity  of  lier 
deed,"'"  she  may  be  estopped  by  acts  after  tlie  dissolu- 
tion of  tlie  marriage,  as  hy  the  acceptance  of  the  pur- 
chase money .'^  After  her  own  death  there  can  be  no 
valid  delivery  of  her  deed.'^  In  cases  where  the  deed, 
though  defective,  is  executed  h\  her  while  acting  vnih. 
the  powers  of  afcnime  sole,  it  is  not  wholly  invalid,  and 
may  therefore  be  confirmed.'* 

1  Lucas  V.  Cobbs,  1  Dev.  &  B.  22S,  232  ;  ante,  ?  36S. 

2  Buchanan  v.  Ilazzard,  95  Pa.  St.  240,  2-13  ;  ante,  U  .3fif!,  ZCA. 

3  Miller  V.  Shackleforrt,  3  Dana,  289,  297. 

•J  Adams  v.  Buford,  6  Dana,  406,  40S  ;  Watson  v.  Bailey,  1  Binn. 
470;  2  Am.  Dec.  462. 

5    Price  v.  Hart,  29  Mo.  171, 172. 

G    Price  v.  Hart,  29  Mo.  171,  172  ;  ante,  ?  3fij. 

7  Adams  v.  Buford,  0  Dana,  40f>,  408. 

8  Smith  V.  Shackleford,  9  Dana,  452,  476  ;  Boatman  t.  Currv,  25 
Mo.  433  ;  Doe  v.  Hovvland,  8  Cowen,  277,  284  ;  13  Am.  Dec.  445  ;  Newell 


585  DEEDS   OF   MARRIED    WOMEN.        g^    403-404 

r.  Anderson,  7  Ohio  St.  12,  IG  ;  Jourrlan,  9  Serg.  &  R.  268,  2Tr.  ;  U  Am. 
Dec.  7-1-i. 

9    Miller  V.  Shackleford,  3  Dana,  28J,  2;i7. 

10  Do-^  V.  ITowland,8  Con-en,  2T7,  28-1 ;  18  Am.  Dec.  ■».') ;  Buchanan 
V.  Hazzard,  95  Pa.  St.  2-10,  2-13. 

11  Jackson  v.  Stevens,  16  Johns.  110, 114. 

12  Newell  ii.  Anderson,  7  Ohio  St.  12, 10  ;  ante,,  \  271. 

13  Doe  ('.  Howland,  S  Cowen,  277,  28-1  ;  18  Am.  Dec.  44o  ;  supra,  n.  8. 

14  Jvewell  V.  Anderson,  7 Ohio  St.  12, 16. 

15  Doe  V.  HoWland,  8  Cowen,  277,  284  ;  18  Am.  Dec.  44.5. 

16  Miller  v.  Shackleford,  3  Dana,  289,  207 ;  post,  § 

17  Price  V.  Hart,  23  Mo.  171,  173.  See  Evans,  3  Yeates,  .507,  .508 ; 
ante,  J  276 ;  ptist, 

18  Shoenberger  v.  Hackman,  37  Pa.  St.  87  ;  Shoenberger  v.  Zook, 
34  Pa.  St.  24. 

19  See  Spafiford  v.  Warren,  47  Iowa,  47,  51  ;  ante,  U  366,  400. 

I  403.  Confirmation  of  deeds  of  married  women  by  cura- 
tive statutes.  —  As  a  general  rule,  statutes  curing  the 
defects  in  deeds  of  married  women  arc  void ;  ^  but  as 
already  shown,  in  some  States  they  have  been  held 
valid,^  especially  where  the  State  Constitution  author- 
ized them.^  There  seems  to  be  no  reason  why  a  statute 
should  be  able  to  cure  a  defect  wliich  neither  the  parties 
nor  a  court  of  equity  could  remedy.* 

1  Loomis  V.  Brush,  36  Mich.  40,  47  ;  ante,  ?  23. 

2  Randall  v.  Kruger,  23  Wall.  137, 149  ;  ante,  ?  23. 

3  Goshorn  v.  Pnrcell,  17  Ohio  St.  G41,  646  ;  49  Am.  Dec.  448  ;  Smith 
V.  Turpin,  20  Ohio  St.  478,  491. 

4  Silliman  v.  Cummins,  13  Ohio,  116, 119. 

§  404.  Confirmation  of  deeds  of  married  women  by  courts 
of  equity.  —  Although  it  lies  within  the  ordinary  juris- 
diction of  courts  of  equity  to  carry  out  tlie  intentions  of 
parties,  and  to  correct,  reform,  and  compel  a  re-execu- 
tion of  an  imperfect  deed,i  this  jurisdiction  is  founded, 
not  on  the  validity  of  the  deed  as  a  deed,  but  on  the 
evidence  which  it  gives  of  a  contract  between  the  par- 
ties, on  its  validity  as  a  contract  to  give  a  deed.^  This 
jurisdiction  depends,  therefore,  on  the  capacity  of  the 
parties  to  contract  to  give  and  take  a  deed,^  and  as 


^    404  DEEDS   OF   MARRIED   WO?rEN.  •  586 

married  women  have  usually  no  general  capacity  to 
contract,*  and  as  a  contract  to  execute  a  statutory  power 
could  not  be  specitically  enforced,^  courts  of  equity 
have  not  been  in  tlie  habit  of  reforming  or  giving  effect 
to  the  imperfect  deeds  of  married  women.*  Generally 
a  married  woman's  deed  invalid  at  law  is  equally  in- 
valid in  equityj  When  she  can  convey  only  inider  a 
power  wliieh  prescribes  a  certain  mode,  if  that  mode  is 
not  pursued  the  power  is  no  more  executed  in  equity 
than  at  law,  and  if  equity  enforced  the  deed  it  would 
give  the  grantor  an  additional  jjower.^  But  where  tlie 
grantor  has  the  powers  of  -a.  fcmme  sole  to  convey,  inde- 
pendently of  the  mode  followed,  equity  will  reform  a 
defect,  and  compel  a  conveyance  in  accordance  with 
tiie  intentions  of  the  parties.'  And  as  a  deed  of  prop- 
erty is  a  contract  with  reference  thereto,^"  wherever 
such  contracts  are  valid,"  although  the  grantee  may 
perhaps  not  have  a  specific  performance  of  an  imper- 
fect deed,''*  he  may  probably  enforce  it  as  a  contract 
against  the  property,  and  recover  any  purchase  money 
paid  thereupon.'^  For  the  reasons  above  given,  equity 
will  not  prevent  a  woman  from  setting  up  the  validity 
of  a  deed  which  in  equity  and  good  conscience  she 
ought  to  recognize,  in  cases  where  it  would  not  confirm 
it  ;^*  though  there  are  a  few  cases  where  equity  has  up- 
held the  deed  of  a  married  woman  to  prevent  great 
injustice. 1^ 

1  Simpson  v.  Montgomerv,  25  Ark.  3R.5,  STT  ;  Shrovorr.  Niokoll,  5C 
Mo.  26J,  2f)7. 

2  Gebb  v.  Rose,  40  Md.  387,  .392  ;  Carr  j-.  Williams,  10  Ohio,  30o,  310. 

3  Shroyer  v.  Nickell,  55  Mo.  2G4, 267. 

4  Discussed  ante,  l\  355-,3!13. 

^  See  McBryde  v.  Wilkinson,  29  ALa.  682  ;  Wilks  v.  Burns,  60  Md. 
64,71. 

6  Holland  v.  Moon,  39  Ark.  120,  124  ;  ante,  \  359. 

7  Williams  v.  Walker,  Law  R.  9  Q.  B.  D.  .576,  .5S1  ;  Drurvr.  Foster, 
2  Wall.  21.  31;  Holland  v.  Mooi,  39  Ark.  120,  124:  Stidman  v.  Mat- 
thews, 29  Arlv.  G50,  6.')3,  662  ;  Simpson  v.  Montgomery,  25  Ark.  365,  373  ; 


587  DEEDS   OF   MAKRIKD   WOMEX.  g   435 

Leonis  v.  Lazzarovich,  55  C.;l.  52,  5")  ;  Atvvator  t>.  Buckingham,  5  Dav, 
492,  41)7 ;  Breit?'.  Yeaion,  101  111.  242,  262;  Patterson  v.  Lawrence,  UO 
111.  174,  180  ;  32  Am.  Dec.  22;  Lindley  v.  Smith,  58  111.  250  ;  Martin  v. 
Hargardine,  46  111.  422,  425 ;  Rogers  i'.  Hlggins,  48  111.  211, 216  ;  Stevens 
V.  Parish,  29  Ind.  260,  2G3 ;  Grapengether  ik  Fejervary,  9  Iowa,  163, 
173  ;  Blackburn  v.  Pennington,  8  Mon.  B.  217  ;  Jolins  v.  Reardon,  11 
Md.  405,  469.  470  ;  Gebb  v.  Rose,  40  Md.  387,  394  ;  Town.^ley  v.  Chapin, 

12  Allen,  476,  479;  Shrovor  v.  Nickell,  55  Mo.  264,  207;  Bugbv  v. 
Emberson,  7i)  Mo.  139,  110  ;  Ilord  i:  Taubman,  79  Mo.  101,  104  ;  White, 
16  N.  J.  L.  202,  214  ;  Marvin  v.  Smith,  46  N.  Y.  571,  574  ;  Wiswall  r. 
Hall,  3  Paige,  313,  317  ;  Knowlcs  v.  McCauly,  10  Paige,  342,  347  ;  Oreen 
V.  Branton,  1  Dev.  Eq.  500,  503  ;  Purcell  v.  Goshorn,  17  Ohio,  105,  124  ; 
49  Am.  Dec.  448  ;  Davenport  v.  Savil,  6  Ohio  St.  559,  566  ;  Carr  v.  Wil- 
liams. 10  Ohio,  305,  310  ;  36  Am.  Doc.  87  ;  Roseburgh  ?t.  Sterling,  27  Pa. 
St.  292,  293 ;  Wrisht  v.  Dufield,  53  Tex.  218,  221 ;  Cross  v.  Everts,  23 
Tsx.  528,  532  ;  ante,  §  359. 

8  See  Leonis  v.  Lazzarovich,  .15  Cal.  52,  55,  58 ;  supra,  n.  7. 

9  Edwards  v.  Schoeneinan,  104  111.  278,  284  ;  Silliinan  v.  Cummins, 

13  Ohio,  116,  119.  See  Scranton  v.  Stewart,  52  Ind.  68,  89;  Styers  c. 
Robbins,  76  Ind.  547  ;  Wedel  v.  Herman,  59  Cal.  507. 

10  See  Richmond  v.  Tibbies,  26  Iowa,  474,  476  ;  Bosford  v.  Pearson, 
7  Allen,  504,  505  ;  ante,  'i  372. 

11  See  ante,  U  206,  238,  372. 

12  Wright  V.  Dufield,  58  Tenn.  218,  221  ;  post,  i  407. 

13  Felke  v.  Tighe,  39  Ark.  357,  363.  See  Shrover  v.  Nickell,  55  Mo. 
264,  26J ;  Danner  v.  Berthold,  H  Mo.  App.  351,  363  ;  post,  I  407. 

14  Drury  v.  Foster,  2  Wall.  24,  34  ;  Alexander  v.  Saulsbury,  37  Ala. 
375,  378  ;  Leonis  v.  Luzzarovich,  ,55  Cal.  52,  55  ;  Oglesb.y  v.  Pasco,  79  111. 
164,  170  ;  Danner  r.  Berthold,  11  Mo.  App.  351,  3.58;  Glidden  v.  Strup- 
ler,  52  Pa.  St.  400.  401 ;  McLaurin  v.  Wilson,  16  S.  C.  402,  410 ;  post,  i  412. 

15  See  Cahill  v.  Martin,  7  Law  Rec.  361,  379 ;  Lawrence,  63  Cal.  129, 
135;  36  Am.  Rep.  762  ;  Patterson  v.  Lawrence,  90  111.  174,  179;  32  Am. 
Dee.  22  ;  Richardson  v.  Simmons,  47  Mo.  20,  27  ;  Glass  v.  Warwick, 
40  Pa.  St.  140,  145. 

g  406.  Impeachment  of  married  women's  deeds. — Al- 
though the  deed  of  a  married  woman  be  perfect  on  its 
face,  .she  may  show  that  in  fact  it  was  obtained  by 
fraud, ^  or  duress,'^  or  was  improperly  executed,'*  and 
that  it  is  therefore  void.*  As  to  her  right  to  do  this 
as  against  a  party  to  the  fraud,^  or  any  party  with 
notice  of  the  defect  or  fraud,^  or  with  notice  of  such 
facts  as  should  have  put  him  on  his  guard,"  or  on 
wlio.se  behalf  the  hu.sband  has  perpetrated  a  fraud, ^ 
there  is  no  doubt ;  and  if  she  in  fact  never  executed 
the  deed,  and  it  is  a  forgery,  she  may  impeach  it  as 
against  any  one  ;  ^  but  if,  though  she  executed  the  deed 
iinproiJerly,   the   certiticate  is  perfect,  she  cannot,   it 


2   405  DEEDS   OF   MARRIKD   WOMEN.  588 

seems,  impeach  it  as  against  purchasers  without  no- 
tice,'"  it  being  a  general  rule,  founded  on  public  policy, 
that  defects  of  execution  cannot  be  alleged  against  bona 
fide  purchasers  or  assignees  for  value  if  the  certificate  b3 
perfect ;  i'  as  to  them,  in  such  cases,  the  certificate  is  con- 
clusive.i'''  The  officer  Avho  made  the  certificate  cannot 
impe?ch  the  same,^^  nor  will  the  unsupported  testimony 
of  the  wife  be  sufficient  to  overcome  the  certificate.^* 
If  she  acknowledged  the  signatui'e,  she  cannot  say  she 
did  not  sign  tlie  deed  ;  ^^  nor  can  she  allege  that  she  did 
not  read  or  iinderstand  the  deed  if  she  had  full  ojipor- 
tvinities  for  so  doing,  and  alleges  no  fraudulent  conceal- 
ment ;  '^  nor  can  she  deny  that  she  assented  when 
she  silently  did  so ; "  her  declarations  made  at  the 
time  of  the  execution  are  evidence  as  part  of  t]ie  res 
gestceJ^  If  she  has  duly  executed  the  deed,  and  has 
left  it  with  lier  husband,  she  cannot  deny  his  aiithor- 
ity  to  deliver  it'^  (but  the  delivery  must  be  made 
before  her  death*).  She  cannot  be  estopped  from  im- 
peaching her  deed  by  her  assent  thereto  during  covert- 
ure,'!  or  by  Iier  mere  delivery  thereof,^-  or  even  by 
her  retention  of  the  purchase  money  ;^  she  cannot  do 
indirectly  by  matter  in  pais  what  she  can  do  directly 
only  by  deed  duly  acknowledged  and  recorded.-'  As  to 
conveyances  to  her  husband,  owing  to  their  relation,  he 
is  treated  much  as  he  would  be  were  he  her  trustee, 
and  must  show  good  faith  throughout.^^ 

1  Williams  t\  Robson,  6  Ohio  St.  510,  515;  Cridge  v.  Haro,  ns  Pa. 
St.  561,  565. 

2  'Wliitrirlsre  r.  B.arrv,  42  Md.  140, 15^. ;  Eadie  v.  Slimmoii,  26  X.  Y. 
9, 13  ;  Louden  v.  Blythe,  16  Pa.  St.  5;!2,  5-10  ;  27  Pa.  St.  22,  25. 

3  Marsh  r.  Mitchell,  26  N.  J.  Eq.  497,  499  ;  ante,  I  401. 

4  Allen  v.  Lenoir,  53  Miss.  321,  Z?.\  ;  ante,  U  400,  401. 

5  S9e  Davis  v.  Kennedy,  58  Tex.  516,  519  ;  ante:  Vi  S4, 110. 

6  Evstpr  V.  Tlathaw.iv, .%  III.  521,  .524  ;  Ford  r.  Teal,  7  Bush,  156' 
1.5S  ;  Marsh  )■.  Mitchell.  26  N.  J.  Eq.  497,  499;  Shrader  v.  Decker,  9  Pa- 
st. 14,  16  ;  2  Scribner  Dow.  pp.  370-376. 

7  Louden  v.  Blythe,  27  Pa.  St.  22,  25. 


5S9  DEEDS   OF   MARRIED  WOMEX.  2   406' 

8  Cortral  v.  Copeland,  IS  Aid.  305,  3J8  ;  ante,  U  84.  ilO. 

9  Allen  v.  Lenoir,  53  Miss.  321,  331.  See  Drury  r.  Foster,  2  Wall. 
24,  ."4  ;  Burr.s  v.  Lyndo,  6  Alien,  30.5,  3U  ;  Johnston  ■;•.  Wallace,  5* 
Miss.  331,  33.5,  3.33  ;  24  Am.  Doc.  6aj  ;  Coaovor  r.  Porter,  14  Ohio  St.  450. 

10  Johnston  v.  Wallace,  53  Miss.  331,  336,  337 ;  24  Ain.  Dec.  600  ; 
infra,  n.  11. 

11  De  Arnaz  v.  Escandon,  .59  Cal.  436,  4S1 ;  Kerr  v.  Russell,  69  111. 
C06,  670;  18  Ana.  Rep.  ;W  ;  Johnston  v.  Wallace,  5.!  MLss.  331,  3:17;  24 
Am.  Dec.  639  ;  Baldwin  v.  .Snowden,  11  Ohio  .St.  203,  212 ;  Hill  v.  Pat- 
terson, 51  Pa.  St.  28.),  2:0 ;  S.'irader  r.  Decker,  !t  P.a.  .St.  14,  16  ;  T.ouden 
V.  Bl  vthn,  27  Pa.  St.  22, 25  ;  Davis  v.  Kennedy,  &3  Tex.  516, 519  ;  Harki.is 
V.  Fo'rsythe,  11  Leigh,  294,  304. 

12  Johnston  v.  Wallace,  53  Miss.  .3.31,  337  ;  24  Am.  Dec.  699  ;  sitprr, 
n.  11 ;  ante,  Hd.  '  .... 

13  Central  v.  Copeland)  18  Md.  305,  313 ;  Johnston  v.  Wallace,.  53 
Miss.  331,  3;:5  ;  24  Am.  Dec.  609  ;  Harkins  r.  Forsytho,  I'l  Leigh,  204,  304. 
But  see  Louden  I'.  Blythe,  16  Pa.  St.  532,  .542. 

14  Kerr  v.  Russell,  60  111.  666,  600.  671 ;  IS  Am.  Rep.  33. 

15  Kerr  !■.  Russell,  60  lil.  OGo,  G73  ;  18  Am.  Rep.  3S. 

16  Comegvs  v.  Clarke,  44  Md.  108,  110,  111  ;  Fowler  r.  Trull,  1  JIiiii, 
40J,  411 ;  Walter  v.  Weaver,  57  Te.x.  560,  571. 

17  Re-xford,  7  Lans.  6,  9. 

18  Louden  )■.  Blythe,  IG  Pa.  St.  532,  542. 

19  Ackert  v.  Pultz,  7  Barb.  3.36,  388 ;  Baldwin  r.  Snowden,]l  Ohio 
Si.  203,  213. 

20  Shoenberger  v.  Ilackman,  37  Pa.  St.  87,  04  ;  antf,  i  402. 

21  Ladd  v.  Hilderbrant,  27  Wis.  1.35, 144  ;  9  .\ni.  Rep.  445  ;  ante.,  i  402. 

22  See  Kerr  v.  Russell,  63  111.  036,  663 ;  13  Am.  Rop.  33  ;  ante,  U  400, 
"JOl.  • 

2!    Oglesby  v.  Pasco,  "^  111.  164,  170  ;  ante,  ?  402  ;  2)o.st,  U  412, 41.3. 

24  Leoiiis  r.  Lazzarovich,  .55  Cal.  52,  58  ;  supra,  n.  23. 

25  Wit.becW,  25  Mich.  430,  442  ;  ante,  5  110. 

g  406.  Married  women's  powers  of  attorney.  —  Inde- 
pendenth'  of  expre.ss  statute,  a  married  Avoman  may, 
where  she  has  over  her  equitable  sejoarate  joroperty  the 
powers  of  a  femme  sole,^  convey  it  by  power  of  attor- 
ney ;  ^  but  she  cannot  through  an  attorney  execute 
even  a  i^rivate  power,'  or  release  her  dower,*  or  convey 
her  property  held  as  at  common  law,^  unless,  as  to  the 
last,  owing  to  her  husband's  civil  death,  etc.,  she  has 
t lie  capacities  of  a /ewi me  so ?e.*  In  some  States  i)owers 
of  attorney  are  expressly  regulated  by  statute ; "  but 
whether  a  married  woman  is  ever  authorized  by  impli- 
cation to  convey  through  an  attorney  is  not  settled,^  and 
II.  it  w. — so. 


g   40«)  DEEDS   OF   MARRIED   -WOMEN.  ^90 

the  difl&cult  question  relating  to  this  subject  is,  whether 
under  the  statutes  authorizing  her  to  convey  her  statu- 
tory separate  property  she  may  convey  by  attorney.^ 
It  seems  plain  that  she  cannot,  if  a  privy  examination 
is  required,  for  this  must  accompany  tlie  conveyance 
itself  ;i"  but  wliere  she  may  convey  as  if  sole,  there 
seems  no  reason  why  she  cannot  convej'  bj'  attorney," 
provided  that  her  husband  join  in  executing  the  poAver, 
if  his  joinder  is  required  in  her  deed.'-'  Of  course  any 
power  of  attorney  to  be  valid  must  be  executed  with 
all  the  formalities  required  with  the  act  which  it  au- 
thorizes.'^ As  to  powers  of  attorney,  unconnected  with 
the  conveyajice  of  land,  tliey  gain  no  validity  by  the 
seal  and  acknowledgment,'*  and  their  validity  is  tested 
as  that  of  other  contracts  of  married  Avomen  is.'^  At 
common  law  a  married  woman's  antenuptial  i^ovrcr 
of  attorney  was  revoked  by  her  marriage.'^ 

1  Discussed  ante,  i  205. 

2  Because  she  caii  convej'  as  a.femnie  sole. 
•"    Ilord?-.  Tanbnian,79Mo.  101,  104. 

•1    Lewis  V.  Coxe,  5  Har.  (Del.^  401,  402  ;  ante,  J  271. 

5  Ileywood  r.  Shreve,  44  N.  J.  L.  94,  95, 96.  See  Ken  rick  t».  Wood, 
Law  II.  9  Eq.  xa,  .^i7 ;  Holladay  v.  Daily,  19  Wall.  C06,  601 ;  Hooper  v. 
Smith,  23  Ala.  6".3,  642;  Holland  v.  Moon,  .39  Ark.  120,  125;  Lewis  v. 
Coxa,  5  Har.  (Del.) 401,  402  ;  Mott  v.  Smith,  16  Cal.  .53:?,  .5.-iS,  5.57  ;  Doug- 
las V.  Fiilfla,  50  C-il.  76,  79  ;  Dawson  r.  Shirley,  6  Blackf.  501,  o33 ;  Pat- 
ton  V.  Stewart,  IJ  Ind.  2o:!,  2  57  ;  Wilkinson  v.  Gettvs,  13  low.-i,  157,153; 
Steele  v.  L'^wis,  1  Mon.  9S,  99  ;  Chew  v.  Bank,  14  Md.  319  ;  Turton,  6 
Md.  .383 ;  Hall  v.  Callahan,  66  Mo.  316,  324 ;  Bocock  r-.  Pavev,  8  Ohio 
St.  270,  27S  ;  Caldwell  v.  Walters,  18  Pa.  St.  79,  82  ;  55  Am.  Dec.  592 ; 
Gillespie  v.  Worford,  2  Cold.  632,  63S ;  Patton  v.  King.  26  Tex.  6S5  ; 
Shanlis  V.  Lancasti-r,  5  Gratt.  110,  IIS  ;  50  Am.  Dec.  lOS  ;  Sumner  v. 
Conant,  10  Vt.  9,  20. 

6  Wright  V.  Blackrwood,  .57  Tex.  644,  648. 

7  See  Drury  v.  Foster,  2  Wall.  24,  .33  ;  Douglas  v.  Fulda,  nO  CaL  183, 
191 ;  Butterfleia  v.  Beall,  3  Ind.  203,  207  ;  Cummi::g  v.  WUliamscn,  I 
Sand.  Ch.  17,  24  ;  R.  L  R.  S.  1882,  p.  423  ;  W.  Va.  R.  S.  1878,  ch.  65,  §  12. 
Her  power  of  attorney  to  sell  to  pav  husband's  debt  is  void  undnr  stat- 
ute prohibiting  her  suretj-ship contracts:  Veal  r. Hunt, 63 Ga. 728, 731. 

8  Holladay  v.  Daily,  19  Wall.  606,  609,  610. 

9  See  cases  »upm,  n.  5 ;  infra,  notes  10-13. 

10  Holland  v.  Moon,  39  Ark.  120,  125;  McDanicl  v.  Grace,  15  Ar!c. 
465;  Mott  V.  Smith,  16  CtiL  5:»,  556,  557  ;  GUlcspie  r.  Vk'orford,  2  Co!  1. 
632,  638  ;  supra,  n.  5. 


591  DEEDS   OF   MARRIED   WOMEN.  g   407 

11  See  Vail  v.  Meyer,  71  Ind.  159,  165  ;  Kickford  v.  Dane,  58  N.  H 
185,  186  ;  anU,  I  364. 

12  See  Holland  v.  Moon,  33  Ark.  120,  128  ;  infra,  n.  13. 

13  Holland  i\  Moon,  33  Ark.  120,  126;  Butterfleld  v.  Beall,  3  Ind. 
203,  207 ;  Steele  v.  Lewis,  1  Mon.  48,  49  ;  Boeock  v.  Pavey,  8  Ohio  St. 
270,  278. 

14  Consult  ante,  I  .i84. 

15  See  Hey  wood  v.  Slireve,  44  N.  J.  L,  94,  9.5,  96. 
Ifi    Montague  v.  Carneal,  1  Marsh.  A.  K.  351,  352. 

I  4D7.  Agreements  of  married  women  to  give  deeds  or  to 
convey.  —  I!:  i;;  comnionly  .said  that  a  wife's  executory 
contract  to  make  a  deed  of  property  is  absolutely  void,' 
and  even  her  contract  to  deed  property  held  by  her  as 
trustee  has  been  so  held.'^  When  she  is  under  her  com- 
mon-law disabilities  and  can  therefore  make  no  con- 
tract,^ .she  cannot,  under  statutes authori.':ing  her  release 
of  dower,*  or  her  conveyance  of  her  common-law  prop- 
erty by  deed  jointly  with  her  husband  and  privily 
acknowledged,^  make  an  oral  contract  to  give  a  dced,^ 
or  one  in  which  hor  husband  does  not  join,'  or  one  in 
which  he  joins  but  which  is  not  acknowledged  ;  ^  and  it 
seems  equally  settled  that  such  statutes  invest  her 
simi^ly  with  statvitory  powers,  Avhich  must  be  strictly 
executed,'  and  that  an  agreement  to  convey  is  not  in 
itself  a  conveyance,'"  and  therefore  not  an  execution  of 
such  powers,  though  executed  Avith  all  the  formalities 
required  by  such  statutes  for  a  conveyance  ;  "  and  that 
such  agreements  cannot  be  enforced  even  in  equity,''^ 
because  equity  will  not  reform,  correct,  or  complete  the 
execution  of  a  statutory  power.'-*  A  married  woman 
who  holds  her  equitable  separate  property  with  the 
powers  of  a/cmme  sole  can  a;.;;rce  to  convey  it,'^  but  her 
husband  must  join  with  her  if  the  settlement  so  pro- 
vides ;  '■^  and  as  to  such  i^roperty  her  imperfect  mort- 
gage is  treated  as  an  agreement  to  give  a  mortgage,  and 
is  enforced  as  a  charge.'^  How  far  she  can  agree  to  con- 
vey her  statutory  separate  estate  is  doubtful,  when  she 


^407  DEEDS  OF  ;iARKiK3  wo:iKX.  592 

has  neithei'  Ihe  general  ownership  thereof,  nor  tlie 
general  power  to  convey  it  as  if  sole,  but  a  parLicular 
mode  for  its  convej'anco  ii  provided  by  statute ;  it  is 
it3i?i-tahl  that  she  cannot  bind  herself  under  Kuch  statutes 
foi*  Its  future  convcyanco  by  an  agreement  not  executed. 
:,aficordin:j  to  tlio  statute,''  and  whether  she  can  by  one 
(executed  according  to  the  statute  is  disputed.*^  Tlie 
(true  rule  seems  (o  1)0  that  when  a  privy  acknowledg- 
ment is  nccessarj^,  an  agreement  to  convey,  thougli 
-executed  with  such  acknowledgment,  could  not  be  en- 
forced,'* for  a  contrary  ndc  would  load  to  the  absurdity 
of  a  married  v.oman  being  compelled  to  execute  a  deed, 
and  to  acknowledge  that  she  executed  \t  freehj  nnd  of 
her  own  accord ; ^^  l)ut  when  she  can  convey  "ai  a 
femme  Hole,  even  though  it  be  pnnided  that  Jier  Iiusband 
shall  join,-'  there  i.;  no  reason  why  her  agreement  to 
convey  should  not  be  enforced  as  the  agreement  of  a 
femme  sole  would  bo.*^  When  she  has  full  ov.  ncrsh^p 
of  her  property,^'  or  may  contract  generally  as  n  femme 
sole,^^  lier  agreement  to  convey  is  valid.  When  her 
contracts  with  reference  to  her  separate  estate  are  valid, 
an  agreement  to  convey  or  an  imperfectly  execixtcd 
deedshovild  be  valid  as  such.^  Whenever  her  contract 
is  valid  she  can  be  compelled  to  specifically  enforce 
it,"'"'  though  if  tliis  would  require  her  privy  acknoAvledg- 
inent  a  ditferent  rule  miglit  apply ;  ^'  but  there  are  some 
cases  Avhere,  though  the  riglit  to  specific  performance 
has  been  denied,  Iier  land  has  been  held  responsible 
for  any  money  paid  on  account  of, '^or  expended  on 
the  faitli  of,^  the  contract.  At  common  law  the  husband 
could  not  by  his  agreement  to  convey  attect  the  wife's 
interest  in  her  lands,'"  thougli  such  an  agreement  bound 
him.'' 

1  Miller  v.  Albertson,  7S  Ind.  MS,  345  ;  Shroyer  v.  Niokell,  55  Mo. 
264,  2H8 ;  Wrifjht.  v.  Dufleld,  5.-)  Tenii.  21S,  221;  cases  generally  in  this 
section  ;  ante,  {  380. 


593  DKEDS   OF    MARKIKD    WOMKX.  §    407 

2  Avery  v.  Griffin,  Law  R.  6  Eq.  GOn,  000  ;  po.s-f,  §  -485. 

3  Norris  v.  Lantz,  18  Md.  260,  269  ;  ante,  i  MO. 

4  King  V.  Barnes,  5  Ala.  610,  61-1;  Butler  r.  Buckingham,  5  Day, 
492,497;  5  Am.  Dec.  17'1 ;  Watrous  ■!'.  C'halker,  7  Conn.  2lM,  228;  ante, 
i  267.    This  is  questioned  in  Dreutzer  r.  Lawrence,  53  Wis.  594,  598. 

5  Williams  v.  Walker,  Law  R.  9  Q.  B.  D.  576,  581 ;  Watrous  v. 
C'halker,  7  Conn.  224,  228  ;  Stevens  r.  Parisli,  2)  Ind.  260,  263  ;  Thames, 
3 Me.  50,  51 ;  Lanev.  McKeen,  15  Me.  304,  305 ;  Sleffev,  19  Md.  5, 12, 13  ; 
Peutz  V.  Simonson,  13  N.  J.  Eq.  232,  234  ;  Jhirtin  v.  bwelly,  6  Wend. 
9,  12  ;  21  Am.  Dec.  245  ;  Andriot  v.  Lawrence,  33  Barb.  ]-l2,  ]'43  ;  Todd  v. 
Pitts,  10  Ohio  bt.  514,  526  ;  Dankel  v.  Hunter,  61  Pa.  fc^t.  382,  384. 

6  Dankel  v.  Hunter,  61  Pa,  St.  382,  384  ;  si/pm,  n.  5. 

7  Behler  v.  Weyburn,59  Ind.  143,  145;  Gobb  v.  Rose, 40  Md.  510, 
520  ;  Townsley  v.  Chapi:i,  12  Allen,  476,  478  ;  Kingsley  v.  Gilman, 
15  Minn.  59,  01  ;  Huff  r.  Price,  50  Mo.  228,  229  ;  ante,  i  399. 

8  Leonis  t'.  Lazzarovich,  55  Cal.  52,56  ;  Watrous  v.  Chalker,7  Conn. 
224,  228  ;  Lane  v.  McKeen.  15  Me.  304,  S05  ;  Pentz  v.  Simonson,  13  N.  J. 
Kq.  232,  234  ;  ante,  U  400,  401. 

9  Leonis  r.  Lazzarovlch,  C5  Cal.  52,  57 ;  Gillespie  v.  Worford,  2 
Cold,  632,  638  ;  ante,  'i  404. 

10    See  Felkne  v.  Tighe,  39  Ark.  357,  362. 

n  Spo  Felkne  v.  Tighe,  39  Ark.  &57,  362  ;  Wood  v.  Terry,  30  Ark. 
:aj,  391  ;  Stedham  v.  Matthews,  2J  Ark.  650,  658. 

12  Stedham  v.  Matthews,  29  Ark.  650,  658  ;  Wills  v.  Galtman, 
53  Miss.  722,  732  ;  Hawiey  v.  Twyman,  29  Gratt.  728,  730  ;  ante,  i  404. 

13  Briglit  V.  Boyd,  1  Story,  478,  487  ;  McBride  v.  Wilkinson.  29  Ala. 
662,667 ;  Ellett).  Wade,  47  A.la.  45l>,4C4  ;  Moreaur.  Detcheniendy,  18 Mo. 
522,  531  ;  Silliman  v.  Cummins,  13  Ohio,  116, 118.  Contra,  Clayton  v. 
Frazier,  33  Tex.  91,  100.  Otherwise  as  to  private  powers:  2" Wash. 
Real  Prop.  ;J00,  et  seq.;  Waterman,  Spec.  Perf.  J  387. 

14  Stead  V.  Nelson,  2  Beav.  245,  248  ;  Wainwright  ^}.  Hardesty. 
2  Beav.  363,  305  ;  Felkne  v.  Tighe,  39  Ark.  a57,  369  ;  Butler  r.  Bucking- 
ham, 5  Day,  492,  497  ;  5  Am.  Dec.  174  ;  Klcher  v.  Smitti,  2  Head 
208,211. 

15  Gelston  x\  Frazier,  26  Md.  320,  344  ;  supt-a,  n.  7. 

16  See  Hall  v.  Eccleston,  37  Md.  510,  520;  Whitelv  ;•.  Stewart, 
63  Mo.  360,  363  ;  infra,  n.  23. 

17  Shroyer  i\  Nickell,  55  Mo.  264,  268  ;  supra,  notes  5-8. 

18  Prn,  Dankel  v.  Hunter,  01  Pa.  St.  382,  as4.  Contra,  Stedham  ?■, 
Matthews,  29  Ark.  650,  658  ;  siqyra,  notes  9-13. 

19  Stedham  v.  Matthews,  29  Ark.  6.50,  658  ;  supra,  n.  11. 

20  See  Leonis  r.  Lazzarovich,  55  Cal.  52,  58  ;  Love  r.  Watkins, 
40  Cal.  517,  559  ;  6  Am.  Rep.  624. 

21  Kingsle\'  v.  Gilman,  15  Minn.  59,  61.  See  Hall  v.  Kccleston, 
37  Md.  510, 520  ;  siipra,  n.  7. 

22  See  Dreutzer  v.  Lawrence,  53  Wis.  534,  598,  599. 

23  Brown,  94  Pa.  St.  362,  367  ;  Dreutzer  v.  Lawrence,  58  Wis.  594, 
598, 599. 

24  Love  ?'.  Watkins,  40  Cal.  .547,559;  6  Am.  Rep.  624;  Spafford  r. 
Warren,  47  Iowa,  47,  51. 

25  Baker  v.  Hathway,  5  Allen,  103,  105.  HusbaiKl  may  have  to 
join  :  Behler  v.  Weyburn,  591ud.  143, 145 ;  supra,  n.  7. 


§   408  DEEDS   OF   MARRIED   WOMEN.  594 

26  Love  V.  Watkins,  40  CiI.  547.  5ja ;  6  Am.  Kep.  624 ;  Baker  v. 
Hathway,  5  Allen,  103,  105  ;  Kingsley  v.  Gilman,  15  Miiin.  59, 61. 

27  Leonis  v.  Lazzarovich,  55  Cal.  52,  58  ;  supra,  n.  20. 

23  Felk!ie  r.  Tighe,  39  Ark.  357,  363  ;  fehroyer  v.  Nickell,  5.5  Mo. 
264,  269  ;  Martin  r.  Dwelly,  6  Wend.  9,  12  ;  21  Am.  Dec.  245  ;  Rosen- 
thal !'.  Mavhugh,  33  Ohio  St.  155,  165;  Warner  v.  Sickles,  Wright, 
81,  82  ;  Pilclier  v.  Smith,  2  Head,  208,  211. 

29    Shroyer  %\  Xickell,  55  Mo.  264,  2&S. 

.30  Tevis  V.  Richardson,  7  Mon.  654,  fiol  ;  Weed  ?>.  Terrv,  2  Doug. 
(Mich.)  344  ;  45  Am.  Dec.  2.57  ;  Williams  v.  Christie,  4  Duer,  29. 

31    Steffey,  19  Md.  5,  12  ;  post,  ?  407. 

g  408.  Miscellaaeous  points  as  to  deeds  of  married 
women.  —  A  joint  deed  of  husband  and  wife  is  binding 
on  the  husband  though  invalid  as  to  the  wlfe.^  A  deed 
from  a  married  woman  to  her  husband  may  be  invalid, 
though  it  would  have  been  valid  if  executed  to  a 
stranger  in  the  same  way.^  The  alteration  of  a  married 
woman's  deed  by  the  grantee  is  fatal  to  its  validity.* 
When  she  may  '•  deed"  she  may  make  any  deed,  abso- 
lute or  conditional,'  of  gift  or  of  purchase.^ 

1  Gill  V.  Fauntlerov,  8  Mon.  B.  177,  182 ;  Central  v.  Copeland,  18 
Md.  :«5,  .320  ;  Johns  v.  Reardon,  11  Md.  465  ;  Hoover  v.  Wells,  33  Jliss. 
536  ;  Real  v.  Harmon, 3S  Mo.  435 ;  Curtiss  v.  Follett,  15  Barb.  337  •  New- 
comb  V.  Smith,  Wright,  20!!. 

2  Preston  v.  Fryer,  38  Md.  221,  225  ;  ante,  ?|  42,  43. 

3  Hord  V.  Taubman,  79  Mo.  101, 103. 

4  Smith  V.  Wilson,  2  Met.  (Ky.)  235,  237. 

5  Comegvs  v.  Clarke,  44  Md.  108.  Ill ;  McFerrin  v.  White,  6  Cold. 
493. 


595  ESTOPPKLS.  g§  409-410 

CHAPTER  XXIII. 

ESTOPPELS    AGAINST   MARRIED   WOMEN. 

1  409.    Estoppels  divided. 

§  410.  Estoppels  against  married  women  — General  rules. 

5  411.  Estoppels  bj'  record  against  married  women. 

2  412.  Estoppels  by  deed  against  married  women. 
i  41S.  Estoppels  i)i  paw  defined. 

§  414.  Estoppels  injMiis  against  married  women  —  General  rule. 

}  415.  Estoppels  (?ipai.s  — Contracts. 

i  416.  Estoppels  in  pais  — False  representations. 

i  417.  Estoppels  ui  paiVs  —  Silence,  acquiescence. 

i  418.  Estoppels  jk  pais  — Pure  torts. 

J  419.  E^Gct  of  participation  of  husband. 

i  420.  Estoppels  after  dissolution  of  marriage. 

g  409.  Estoppels  divided.  —  Estoppels  are  of  three 
kinds  ;!  (1)  Estoppels  of  record,  consisting  mainly  of 
judgments,  the  material  contents  of  which  parties  and 
privies  cannot  dispute  —  are  estopped  from  disputing  — 
such  matters  being  res  adjudicata.  (2)  Of  deed,  consist- 
ing mainly  of  statements  in  deeds  or  instruments  under 
seal,  which  the  parties  to  such  deeds  or  instruments  are 
not  allowed  to  deny.  (3)  In  pais,  consisting  of  state- 
ments or  representations  by  words  or  conduct  made 
by  one  person  to  another  and  relied  on  by  that  other, 
so  that  it  would  damage  that  other  for  such  person 
to  deny  them,  which  such  person  is  not  allowc  i  to 
deny. 

1    See  Bigelow  Estoppel,  Introduction  ;  post,  U  4:0-lW. 

§  410.  Estoppels  against  married  women — General  rules. 
—  In  accordance  with  section  409,  one  maj'  be  estojaped 
by  a  judgment,  by  a  deed,  bj'  a  contract,  or  bj'  a  tort ; 
and  the  general  rule  as  to  married  women  is  that  they 
can  be  estopped  only  by  valid  judgments  '  or  deeds  ;  ^ 
by  contracts  olily  so  far  as  they  have  the  capacity  to 


g   413  ESTOPPELS.  596 

contract ;  3  and  only  by  torts  of  a  kind  for  which  they 
Avould  be  liable*  It  is  clear  that  a  married  woman 
under  disabilities  cannot  be  estopped  just  as  if  she 
were  sui  jm'is,^  and  the  only  way  of  determining  in 
Avhat  cases  she  maybe  estopped  is  to  ascertain,  first, 
whether  the  alleged  estopi^cl  grows  out  of  a  jugdinent, 
deed,  contract,  or  tort ;  and  second,  whether  such 
judgment,  deed,  contract,  or  tort  is  binding  as  such  on 
tlie  married  woman.  To  illustrate:  A  judgment  is 
obtained  against  a  married  woman  on  a  void  note  ;  she 
moves  to  have  it  set  aside,  alleging  her  coverture  and 
its  consequent  invalidity  ;  it  is  a  general  principle  that 
when  a  jierson  api:)lies  to  have  a  judgment  sot  aside  he 
cannot  allege  any  ground  which  lie  might  have  alleged 
in  the  suit  as  a  defense ;  it  is  held  that  tliis  rule  does 
not  apply  to  married  women,  because  tlie  judgment  is 
invalid.^  Again,  a  married  woman  makes  a  deed  of 
certain  property,  and  the  deed  being  imperfectly  exe- 
cuted is  utterly  void ;  but  after  receiving  the  purchase 
money  slie  sues  tlie  grantee  in  ejectment ;  held,  she  is 
not  estopped  from  setting  up  her  title,  because  the 
deed  is  invalid.^  A  married  woman,  by  a  valid  instru- 
ment, assigns  a  mortgage  to  her  liusband  in  blank  ;  slie 
is  estopjjed  from  denying  liis  right  to  pledge  it,  because 
tlie  assignment  is  valid.^  A  married  woman  stands  by 
and  sees  the  public  use  a  part  of  lier  property  as  a 
road ;  she  is  not  estopped  from  closing  the  road  up, 
because  there  is  no  contract  or  tort,  and  she  can  dispose 
of  her  property  only  in  the  way  prescribed  by  statute.^ 
A  married  woman  allows  her  husband  to  collqct  her 
rents  several  times  ;  she  is  thereby  esto])ped  from  sub- 
sequently denying  his  authority  to  do  so,  because  she 
can  collect  her  rents  herself,  and  may  do  this  by  agent, 
and  by  her  conduct  has  constituted  her  husband  her 
agent.'"    A  married  woman,  by  representing  that  che 


597  ESTOPPELS.  g  413 

13  unmarried,  secures  credit ;  she  vi  not  estopped  from 
setting  up  her  coverture  as  a  defense,  when  sued  on 
tills  debt,  for  though  she  has  committed  a  fraud,  it  is 
one  connected  witli  her  contract,  and  one,  tJierefore,  for 
whicli  s'le  would  not  be  liable.^'  But  when  a  married 
woman  represented  tliat  certain  property  of  liers  be- 
longed to  her  husband,  for  the  purpose  of  deceiving  hij 
creditors,  slie  was  held  estopped  from  setting  up  her 
title  to  t!io  proi^erty  as  against  tliese  creditors,  because 
this  fraud  vras  unconnected  with  any  contract  of  hers, 
and  one  for  wliicii  siie  miglit  have  been  sued.'-  Thougii 
tliese  cases  illustrate  tlie  rules,  there  are  many  cases 
which,  witliout  any  reference  to  any  rules  but  on  gen- 
eral grounds  of  equity,  seem  to  recognize  a  fai-  wider 
liability  on  the  part  of  married  women  to  be  estopped." 
In  the  citations  under  this  section  the  cases  are  col- 
lected. 

1  Griffith  V.  Clarke,  18  Md.  457,  464 ;  Morse  v.  Toppan,  3  Grar,  411, 
412.  See  on  this  point,  Faithonie  v.  lilaquiri',  6  IMauIe  tt  s.  7.< ; 
Ga!nbetta?'.Broch,4lC'aI.72,82,8J;  Dovle  r.  Kf  II  v,  75  111.574  ;  Klson  r. 
O'Oowd, 40 Incl.  3()0,  30G  ;  Van  Meter  v.  Wolfe, '27  Iowa,  'Ml,  'Mi  ;  i;:i  Iowa, 
3:)7, 404  ;  19  Iowa,  l.'iG  ;  Gootlirie  v.  Howard,  :f:  Iowa,  54, 55  ;  Spaliiini,'  >: 
Watlion,7  Bush,65.>,  66:! ;  Case  r.  Itihelin,  I  Marsh.  J.  J.  -Z'.t,  Mo  ;  r.arncs 
V.  Burbridge,  15  La.  An.  6:s,  (;j'i ;  Mai^rndir  v.  Buck,  56  Miss.  ;!I4,  ;;;5  ; 
GreeiH'.  Branton,  1  Dcv.  E'l.  5  d,5(i! ;  Jlartuian  r.Ogborn,54  l*a.  ist.  I'Jo, 
123  ;  Graham  v.  Long,  65  Pa.  .St.  3^3,  3SG;  t'aldwoll  v.  Vv'alters,  Is  I'a. 
St.  70,  8{ ;  Howard  v.  North,  5  Tex.  2U0,  39'J  ;  Baxter  v.  Dear,  24  Tex. 
17,21;  post,  i-i^i^- 

2  Oglesby  v.  Pasco,  73  111.  164, 170  ;  Glidden  v.  Stampler.  52  Pa.  St. 
400,  406.  See  on  IaU  point,  Drury  v.  Foster,  2  W;iU.  24,  3.i ;  Alexander 
V.  Saulsburv,  37  Ala.  375,  S7S;  Wood  v.  Terrv,  KOArk.  3S.5,  3!)3;  Mor- 
rison V.  Wilson,  13  Cal.  4;)8,  501;  Kerr  v.  Russell,  69  111.  666,673;  18 
Am.  Rep.  634  ;  Blam  w.  Harrison,  11  111.  384,  IMS  ;  Scranton  r.  .Stewart, 
52  Ind.  68,  94  ;  Behler  v.  Wovburn,  59  Ind.  143,  145  ;  Patterson  v. 
Frazer,  5  La.  An.  6.86,  587;  Comegys  v.  Clarke,  44  Md.  lOS,  110,  111  ; 
Lowell  V.  Daniels,  2  Gray,  101 ;  Merriam  v.  Bo:;ton,  117  Mass.  241,  244  ; 
Nash  V.  Spofford,  10  Met.  1!)2  ;  Norton  v.  Nichols,  35  Mich.  148,  l.'iO ; 
Hopper  V.  Domarest,  21  N.  J.  L.  5-5,  541  ;  Grant  ?'.  Towiisend,  2  Hill, 
554,  557  ;  Green  v.  Branton,  1  Dev.  Kq.  500,  503  ;  Dukes  r.  Spangler.  "5 
Ohio  St.  ll!l,  127;  Rose::thal  r.  Mayhugh,  33  Ohio  .St.  I"5,  161,  Ik:  ; 
Todd  V.  Pittsburgh,  19  Ohio  St.  514,  ,526  ;  Rumfeldt  v.  Cleineis.  4(i  I'n. 
St.  4.55,  4.57  ;  Pcttit  v.  Fretz,  33  Pa.  St.  118,  120  ;  McLaurni  r.  Wilson,  16 
S.  0.  4'>'^  410  ;  Walter  v.  Weaver,  .57  Tex.  uro,  .571 ;  It'K'ford  ?•.  Carwile, 
13  W.  Va.  573,  683  ;  Godfrey  v.  Thonitou,  46  Wis.  677,  6.,0  ;  p^st,  J  412. 

3  Matthews  v.  Murchlson,  17  Fed.  Rep.  760,  766  ;  Powell,  08  P-^. 
St.  403,  413.  See  ou  this  ))oi-.!t,  Scliwartz  r.  Saunders,  46  111.  I'l,  24  ; 
Spafiford  V.  Warrea,  47  Iowa,  47,  &1 ;  Prestoa  v.  Evaus,  50  Md.  476, 


2    410  ESTOPPELS.  59S 

401  ;  Dann  v.  Cudnev,  13  Mich.  239,  242,  2-13  ;  P.odino  v.  Killeen,  &3 
N.  V.  93,  9fi  :  Xash  v.  Mitchell,  71  X.  Y.  199,  200 :  27  Am.  Rep.  3><  ; 
Towles  V.  FLsher,  77  >'.  C.  437,  443  ;  Innis  v.  Templeton,  9.5  Pa.  St.  oi, 
60  ;  Mason  r.  Jordan,  13  R.  I.  193, 195 ;  snpra,  n.  2 ;  infra,  ii.  4  ;  post, 
a  414-417. 

4  Oglesby  v.  Pasco,  73  III.  164,  169.  On  this  point,  see  Jones 
V.  Keaney,  1  Dru.  &  War.  134,  167;  Vaughan  r.  Vandorstegen,  2 
Drew.  363,  .379;  Wright  v.  Leonard,  8  Jur.  X.  S.  415;  Cannam  v. 
Farmer,  3  Ex.  698  ;  Adeiphl  v.  Fairhurst.  9  E.x.  422,  421 ;  Lush,  Law 
R.  4  Ch.  App.  591,597;  Matthews  r.  Murchison,  17  Fed.  Rep.  760, 
766 ;  Mover  v.  Adams,  2  Fed.  Rep.  182,  1S7 ;  Bank  v.  Lee,  13 
Peters,  107,  118,  121  ;  Drake  v.  Glover,  30  Ala.  as2,  392 ;  Reis  v. 
Lawrence,  63  CaL  129,  1.^5;  Lathrop  v.  Soldiers,  45  Ga.  483,  486  ;  Pat- 
terson V.  Lawrence,  90  111.  174,  179  ;  32  Am.  Rep.  22  ;  Leeders  v.  Allen, 
98  111.  468.  471  ;  Hackett  r.  Bailey,  86  III.  74,  77;  Anderson  r.  Armi- 
stead.  69  111.  452,  4.>5;  Schwartz  ?'.-6aunders,  46  111.  18,24;  M'ilson  f. 
Loomis,  55  III.  352,  3.57  ;  Catherwood  v.  Watson,  65  Ind.  .576,  .580  ;  Sum- 
mers V.  Hoover,  42  Ind.  1-53,  1.57;  Peck  v.  Henslev,  21  Ind.  .^44,345; 
Law  r.  Long,  41  Ind.  586,  .506;  Gatting  v.  Rodman,  6  Ind.  289,  293; 
State  V.  Holloway,  8  Blackf.  4.5,  47  ;  Jones  v.  Brandt,  59  Iowa,  .^32,  341 ; 
C'rouse  v.  Morse,  49  Iowa,  382,  a86;  Corning  v.  FowK'r,  24  Iowa,  584, 
587  ;  Connollv  v.  Branstler,  3  Bush,  702,  703  ;  Rusk  v.  Fonton,  14  Bush, 
490,  493  ;  Davis  v.  Tingle,  8  Mon.  B.  539,  .S13 ;  Mcintosh  v.  Smith,  2  La. 
An.  756.  757;  Bancroft  v.  Curtis,  108  Mass.  47;  Lowell  r.  Daniels,  2 
Gray.  161  ;  Dann  v.  Cudnev,  13  Mich.  239,  241  ;  Palmer  r.  Cross,  1 
Smedes  &  M.  48,  68;  Murfav  r.  Fox,  11  Mo.  5.5.5,  .565;  McBeth  v. 
Trabne,  69  Mo.  652,6-57;  Read  v.  Hall,  57  X.  H.  482,  481;  Besson  v. 
Eveland,  26  X.  J.  Eq.  468,  478  ;  Carpenter,  27  X.  J.  Eq.  502,  .504  ;  25 
X.  J.  Eq.  I'i4,  201 ;  Svracuse  v.  Wing,  85  X.  Y.  421,  426 ;  Bradstreet  v. 
Pratt,  17  Wend.  44,  46  ;  Ludner  v.  Sahler,  51  Barb.  322,  324  ;  Dempsey 
V.  Tvler,  3  Duer,  7^  100  ;  Wilson  )•.  Fuller,  fiO  How.  Pr.  4S0.  481  ; 
Towles  V.  Fisher,  77  X.  C.  437,  443  ;  Todd  r.  Pittsburgh,  19  Ohio  St. 
614,  .5i5,  526  ;  Earlv  v  Rolfe,  95  Pa.  St.  .5.8,  60  ;  Keen  v.  Hartman,  48  Pa, 
St.  497,  499;  Mcfulloush  v.  Wilson,  21  Pa.  St.  436,  442  ;  McClure  v. 
Douthitt,  6  Pa.  St.  4!4,  417  ;  Mason  v.  Jordan,  13  R.  I.  193,  195  ;  Wilkes 
r.  Kirkpatri'^k.  1  Humph.  54,  M;  Coolev  t-.  Steele, 2  Head,  605,  608; 
Smith  V.  Armstrong,  24  Wis.  446, 4.50  ;  post,  U  416-418. 

5  Wood  V.  Terry,  30  Ark.  389,  303  ;  Glidden  v.  Strupler,  52  Pa.  Sf 
400,  404,  405.  Estopped  by  acts  and  declarations  in  all  matters  in 
respect  to  which  she  is  sui  juris:  Xash  v.  Mitchell,  71  X.  Y.  199, 200 ; 
27  Am.  Rep.  3.8.    But  see  infra,  n.  13. 

6  Griflath  V.  Clarke,  18  ild.  4.57,  464.  There  are  cases  cmitra,  see 
post,  I  411. 

7  Oglesby  v.  Pasco,  79  111.  164,  170 ;  Rumfeldt  v.  Clemens,  46  Pa. 
St.  455,  457.     See  post,  i  412. 

8  Flanagin  v.  Hambleton,  rA  Md.  222,  232. 

9  McBeth  r.  Trabne,  69  Mo.  612,  657  ;  post,  J  417. 

10  Early  v.  Rolfe,  ft5  Pa.  St.  5.8,  60,  61  ;  post,  ??  417,  419. 

11  Wilson  r.  Fuller,  60  How.  Pr.  4«0,  481  ;  Keen  r.  Coleman,  39  Pa. 
St.  299,  302.    There  are  cases  contra,  see  ijost,  U  416,  418. 

12  Oglesby  v.  Pasco,  79  111.  164,  169 ;  post,  U  416-118. 

13  See  Matthews  r.  Murchison,  17  Fed.  Rep.  760,  766  ;  Reis  v.  Law- 
rence, 63  Cal.  129,  135  ;  Patterson  v.  Lawence,  EO  111.  174,  179  ;  32  Am. 
Rep.  22;  Xorton  i'.  Xichols,  35  Mich.  148,  1.50;  Richardson  v.  Sim- 
mons, 47  Mo.  20,  27  ;  O'Brien  v.  Hilburn,  9  Tex.  297,  299  ;  Godfrey  v. 
Thornton,  46  Wis.  677, 690. 


599  ESTOPPELS.  I    411 

I  411.  Estoppels  by  record  against  married  women..  —  As 
a  general  rule,  a  judgment  is  binding  only  on  the 
parties  to  trie  suit,  and  on  them  only  if  they  are  compe- 
tent.^  A  judgment  on  a  contract  is  in  the  nature  of  a 
contract ;  it  is  a  specialty  and  creates  a  debt  ;  and  to 
have  that  effect,  it  must  be  taken  against  one  callable  of 
contracting  a  debt.'  A  judgment,  accordingly,  against 
a  married  Avoman,  on  her  void  contract,^  or  warrant  of 
attorney,*  or  by  confession  when  she  cannot  contract,* 
is  void  and  does  not  estop  her.  Such  a  judgment 
against  a  married  woman  under  disability  is  a  manifest 
error,  like  a  judgment  against  a  dead  person.^  The 
principle  tliat  a  party  is  estopped  from  alleging,  in 
order  to  impeach  a  judgment  collatoralh',  Avhat  he 
alleged  or  might  have  alleged  as  a  ground  for  defense 
in  the  suit,  does  not  apply  to  a  c^ise  where  the  defendant 
was  a  married  woman  under  disability.^  But  this  has 
been  expressly  denied,^  and  it  has  been  hold  that  a 
judgment  against  a  married  woman,  if  fairly  obtained, 
is  binding  on  her,®  and  that  she  is  estopped  thereby 
from  setting  up  in  a  collateral  suit  that  she  was  afcmme 
covert,  whether  she  had  alleged  this  defense,"  or  had 
allowed  the  suit  to  go  by  default."  In  cases  where  she 
is  sued  on  a  valid  cause  of  action,  slie  is  esto^jped  by 
the  judgment  as  any  other  person  is.^-  And  where  she 
is  liable  Vvitli  her  husband,  as  on  her  antenuptial  con- 
tracts,^^  and  on  her  torts,'*  she  is  bound  thereby,'" 
although  her  husband,  having  full  power  to  manage  the 
suit,  has  neglected  it,**  unless  he  has  colluded  with 
the  plaintitr,"  and  her  property  may  be  seized  under 
such  a  judgment  if  entered  generally  against  them 
both.'8  If  her  land  bo  seized  under  a  void  judgment, 
she  is  not  estopped  from  recovering  it  in  ejectment.'* 

1  Eigelow  Estoppel,  pp.  -46-18. 

2  Morse  v.  Toppau,  3  Gray,4U  ;  Barnes  v.  Burbridge,  15  La,  An.  628. 


I  412  ESTOPPELS.  600 

3  Griffith  v.  Clarke,  18  Md.  457,  4ft4.  See  Doyle  v.  Kelly,  75  111.  574 ; 
Morse  v.  Toppan,  3  Grav,  411,  412 ;  Ma^ruder  v.  Buck,  56  Miss.  314,  315  ; 
Corrigan  v.  Bell,  73  Mo."53,  57  ;  ante,  U  •'5*«.  "HO. 

4  Faithorne  v.  Blaqnire,  6  Maule  &  S.  73;  Graham  v.  Long,  65 
Pa.  St,  383,  336  ;  ante,  §?  406,  410. 

5  Barnes  r.  Burbridge,  15  La.  An.  6-2S,  629. 

6  Spalding  r.  M'athen.  7  Bush,  RiO,  663  ;  Case  v.  Ribelin,  1  Marsh. 
J.  J.  2y,  30. 

7  Griffith  r.  Clarke,  IS  Md.  457,  464. 

8  Elson  V.  O'Dowd,  40  Ind.  300,  306  ;  Van  Meter  v.  Wolfe,  27  Iowa, 
341,  .^4. 

9  Gambetta  v.  Bro'-h,  41  CaL  7»,  82,  83  ;  Elson  r.  O'Dowd,  40  Ind. 
sno,  .306  ;  Goothrie  r.  Howard,  82  Iowa,  54,  55;  Van  Meter  v.  Wolfe, 
27  Iowa,  ail,  :W4  :  23  Iowa,  397,  404  ;  19  Iowa,  136.  See  under  special 
act  in  Penn.,  Hartman  r.  Ogborn,  54  Pa,  St,  120, 123. 

10  Gambetta  ?'.  Broch,  41  Cal.  7J>,  83. 

11  Elson  v.  O'Dowd,  40  Ind.  300,  306. 

12  Brown  v.  Kemper,  27  Md.  666, 673  ;  Baxter  v.  Dear,  24  Tex.  17, 21  ; 
ante,  t  410. 

13  Discussed  aii/e,  ?  J  67,  305. 

14  Discussed  onf«,  ?  66;  ;>o.>!t,  ?  418. 

15  Green  r.  Branton,  1  Dev.  Eq.  500,  504. 

IS  Green  r.  Branton,  1  Dev.  Eq.  500,  5W  ;  post,  ?  461. 

17  Green  r.  Branton,  1  Dev.  Eq.  500,  .504  ;  post,  §  461. 

IS  Howard  r.  Xorth,  5  Tex.  290,  299  ;  51  Am.  Dec.  760. 

19  Caldwell  r.  Walters,  IS  Pa.  St.  70,  S3  ;  55  Am.  Dec.  592. 

g  412.  Estoppels  oy  deed  against  married  women.  —  A 
married  woman  is  not  estopped  by  her  invalid  deed.^ 
8he  may,  for  example,  recover  the  property  conveyed 
thereby  in  ejectment,  thougli  she  has  received  the  pur- 
chase money.*  But  where  the  said  purchase  money 
does  not  vest  in  the  husband,  as  at  common  law,^  but 
becomes  separate  property  of  the  wife,  the  courts  have 
revolted  again.st  this  rule  as  most  unjust,  and  have 
either  held  lier  bound  to  restore  the  said  money,*  or 
have  charged  the  same  on  the  property  as  a  debt.'  If 
she  could  be  estopped  by  her  invalid  deed,  she  would 
be  able  to  convey  her  property  ■\^-ithout  reference  to 
the  statutes  relating  to  conveyances  of  married  women,* 
and  the  said  statutes  would  be  in  effect  repealed.'  She 
is  not  estopped  by  her  seal  from  showing  that  the  deed 


601  ESTOPPELS.  I    412 

was  made  ■without  the  consideration  required  by  law,^ 
or  from  showing  that  the  deed  is  void  because  exe- 
cuted in  blanlc*  But  she  is  estopped,  it  seems,  from 
saying  tliat  slie  did  not  sign  a  deed  which  she  has  duly 
acknowledged, 1"  or  that  she  did  not  read'^  or  under- 
stand'-  it,  or  did  not  intend  to  deliver  it  when  she  left 
it  in  the  hands  of  her  husband  and  he  delivered  it.^* 
Hy  hel"  deed,  voidable  on  account  of  infancy,  but  rati- 
fied by  receipt  of  the  purchase  money  during  covert- 
ure, she  is  estopped,''  and  so  she  is  by  her  deed,  valid 
because  made  after  her  husband  had  ijermanently  left 
her  and  the  State  ;  '^  and  Avhen  she  has  validly  assigned 
a  mortgage  to  her  husband  in  blanl?,  she  is  estopped 
from  denying  his  right  to  pledge  it.'^  But  her  valid 
deed  estops  her  only  from  denying  it  to  be  a  convey- 
ance;" she  is  not,  unless  she  can  contract  indei^end- 
ently,  estojjped  by  her  covenants  therein,'*  and  may 
set  up  an  after-acquu-ed  title.'^  The  effect  of  her  deeds 
of  dower,^*  and  her  right  to  impeach  her  deeds,^'  have 
already  been  discussed. 

1  Alexander  v.  Saulsburv,  CT  Ala.  3T5,  378  ;  M'ood  v.  Terrv,  30 
Ark.  aS-i,  »Xi  ;  Morrison  r.  Wilson,  13  Cal.  4't8,  501  ;  Oglesbv  ".  Pasco, 
79  III.  164,  170;  Behlcr  i:  Wtyburn,  59  lad.  143,  145;  Pattenson  v. 
Frazer,  5  La.  An.  .>S6,  587;  LowcU  v.  Daniels,  2  Grav,  IGl  ;  Green  v. 
Branton,  1  Lev.  Eq.  50C,  503;  Lukes  v.  Spangler,  35  Ohio  St.  119,  127  ; 
Todd  ■».  Pittsburgh,  19  Ohio  St.  514,  526;  Glidden  r.  Strupler,  52  Pa. 
St.  400,  406  ;  Rumfi'ldt  r.  Clemens,  46  Pa.  St.  445,  4.57  ;  Pettit  v.  Fretz, 
33  Pa.  St.  118,  120  ;  McLaurin  v.  Wilson,  16  S.  C.  402,  410 ;  Wilkes  v. 
Kirkpatrick,  1  Humph.  .54,  5S.  Contra,  Xorton  r.  Nichols,  35  Mich. 
148, 150  ;  Godfrey  v.  Thornton,  46  Wis.  677,  6J0.  See  ante,  U  402-405 ; 
post,  {  415. 

2  Oglesby  v.  Pasco,  79  111.  164, 169  ;  Glidden  v.  Strupler,  52  Pa.  St. 
400,  406  ;  supra,  n.  1. 

3  As  in  Rumfeldt  i'.  Clemens,  46  Pa.  St.  417,  418. 

4  Pitcher  v.  Smith,  2  Head,  208,  211  ;  ante,  I  404. 

5  Shroyer  v.  Xickell,  55  Mo.  264,  26^  ;  ante,  i  404.    See  8  Am.  La\y  • 
Eev.  N.  S.  299,  300 ;  article  by  s.  D.  Thompson. 

6  Discussed  ante,  U  395,  400,  401. 

7  Glidden  v.  Strupler,  52  Pa.  St.  4(0,  403.  See  Morrison  v.  "Wilson, 
13  Cal.  408.  501 ;  Behler  ?•.  Wevburn,  5')  Ind.  143,  145 ;  Todd  v.  PitU- 
burgh,  19  Ohio  St.  514,  526  ;  Pettit  v.  Fretz,  33  Pa.  St.  118, 120. 

8  Radford  v.  Carwile  13  W.  Va.  573,  68.3. 

H.  &  W.  — 51. 


g    413  ESTOPPKLS.  002 

9    Drury  v.  Foster,  2  Wall.  24,  33. 

10  Kerr  v.  Russell,  69  III.  666,  673  ;  13  Am.  Rep.  634  ;  ante,  i  JOO. 

11  Comegys  v.  Clarke,  44  Md.  108,  110,  111  ;  Fowler  v.  Trull,  1  Hun, 
40J,  4U. 

12  Walter  v.  Weaver,  57  Tex.  560,  671. 

13  Ackert  v.  Pultz,  7  Barb.  338,  333  ;  Etildwin  r.  Snowaeii,  U  Ohio 
St.  203,  2V,i. 

14  Scranton  xk  Stewart,  52  Ind.  6S,  D4. 

15  Reis  V.  Lawrence,  63  C\al.  129,  135  ;  Daiiner  v.  Berthold,  11  Mo 
App.  351,  365  ;  Rosenthal  v.  Mayhugh,  33  Ohio  St.  155,  IGl,  162 ;  ante, 
J  394. 

16  Flanagin  v.  Hambleton,  54  Md.  222,  232. 

17  Preston  v.  Evans,  53  Md.  476,  491. 

18  Blain  v.  Harrison,  11  111.  384,  386  ;  Shumaker  v.  Johnson,  35  Ind, 
33,  as  ;  Preston  v.  Evans,  5fi  Md.  476,  491 ;  Merriam  v.  Boston,  117  Mass, 
241, 244  ;  Nash  v.  Spofford,  10  Met.  192  ;  Hopper  v.  Demarest,  21  N.  J.  I,. 
525,  641  ;  Grout  v.  Townsend,  2  Hill,  554,  557  ;  Jackson  v.  Vanderhey- 
den,  17  Johns.  167  ;  8  Am.  Dec.  378  ;  Bartlett  v.  Boyd,  34  Vt.  256,  2G1 : 
ante,  i  384. 

19  Blain  v.  Harrison,  11  III.  384,  386  ;  Shumaker  v.  Johnson,  35  Ind, 
33,  38  ;  Nash  v.  Spofford,  10  Met,  192 

20  Ante,  1272. 

21  Ante,  i  405. 

§  413.  Estoppels  in  pais  defined. — An  estoppel  m  pais  is 
one  which  is  not  created  by  record  or  by  deed,  but  which 
results  from  a  siini^lo  contract  or  tort ;  tlie  par:y  who  i.^ 
estopped  by  an  estoppel  in  pais  is  prevented  from 
bringing  evidence  to  conti'adict  certain  representations 
that  he  lias  made  by  word  or  conduct ;  and  these 
representations  may  be  in  the  nature  of  a  warranty  and 
contract/  or  in  the  nature  of  a  fraud  and  tort,^  One  is 
not  estopped  from  denying  all  his  representations,  bui 
only  tliose  made  under  certain  circumstances.  The  rule 
has  been  laid  down  as  follows  :  To  establish  an  estoppel 
in  pais,  it  must  be  sliown  :  First,  that  the  person  sought 
to  be  estopped  has  made  an  admission  or  done  an  act 
with  the  intention  of  influencing  the  conduct  of  another, 
or  that  he  had  reason  to  supijose  would  influence  his 
conduct,  inconsistent  with  the  evidence  lie  proposes  to 
give,  or  the  title  he  propo.ses  to  set  up.  Second,  that 
the  other  party  has  acted  upon  or  been  influenced  by 


603  KSTOPPKLS.  2?  414-415 

such  act  or  declaration.  Third,  tluit  sucli  party  will  be 
l^rejudiced  by  allowing  the  trutli  of  tlie  admission  to 
be  disproved.' 

1  SeeCurdi'.  Dodds,  GBush,  681, 685;  po4<,  SHl-l-113- 

2  See  Oglesby  v.  Pasco,  73  111.  164,  IGO,  170  ;  post,  U  416-4;s. 

3  Crouse  v.  Morso,  40  Iowa,  382,  337,  3S8 ;  Brown,  35  N.  Y.  510,  541. 

§  414.  Estoppels  in  pais  against  married  women  —  General 
mlo. —  lleferring  to  section  413,  a  married  woman  may 
be  estopi^ed  in  pais  by  a  declaration  in  the  nature  of  a 
contract  or  warranty,  or  in  the  nature  of  a  fraudulent 
representation  or  tort,  and  she  is  estopped  in  one  case 
or  the  otlier  only  when  slie  can  render  herself  liable  by 
such  a  contract  ^  or  tort.^  But  the  usual  requirements 
to  an  estoppel  in  general^  apply  to  estoppels  against 
married  women,  and  a  married  woman  is  not  estopped 
unless  her  representation  has  been  relied  on,*  and  unless 
the  other  party  would  be  injured  by  her  denying  it.^ 

1  Powell,  98  Pa.  St.  403,  413  ;  ante,  §  410,  n.  3  ;  post,  J  415. 

2  Oslesby  v.  Pasco,  7'J  III.  104, 169  ;  ante,  ?  410,  n.  4  ;  i»)st,  ?  418 

3  Crouso  V.  Morso,  4S  Iowa,  382,  387,  383  ;  ante,  I  413. 

4  Carpenter,  27  N.  J.  Eq.  502,  504. 

5  McGregor  v.  Siblej',  69  Pa.  St.  388,  3^4. 

§  415.  Estoppel  in  pais — By  contract. — A  married 
woman's  liability  to  be  estojjped  by  her  contracts  is 
coterminous  with  her  capacity  to  contract ;  ^  if  the  con- 
tract is  valid  it  estops  her  ;  if  it  is  invalid  it  does  not.'' 
The  contract  may  be  either  express  or  implied,  but  a 
contract  which  she  could  not  expressly  make  will 
never  be  implied  against  a  married  woman.^  How  far 
she  is  cstojiped  by  her  deeds  has  been  discus.sed.''  Not 
only  does  tlie  deed  itself,  if  invalid,  not  estop  her,*  but 
her  acceptance  of  the  purchase  money,®  and  her  recog- 
nition of  the  grantee's  title,'  does  not  estop  her,  for  such 
conduct  could  worlc  an  estoppel  only  on  the  ground  of 
implied  contract  (the  existence  of  an  actual  intent  to  de- 


§   415  ESTOPPELS.  G04 

fraud  not  being  considered  hero  ^),  and  the  law  woilld  not 
imply  a  contract  whero  she  had  no  capacity  to  contract, 
and  her  deed  was  therefore  void.'  But  her  assent  or 
contract  will  be  implied  when  she  could  expressly  con- 
tractji"  as  where  she  sells  a  horse  which  is  her  separate 
property,  and  allows  the  money  to  be  paid  to  her 
husband ;  in  sucli  case  slie  cannot  afterwards  deny  his 
authority  to  receive  it.'i  When  she  can  contract  as  if 
unmarried,  she  can  be  estopped  as  if  solc.i-  Whatever 
she  can  do  herself  can  estoj)  her  if  done  by  her 
husband  with  her  consent,  his  agency  for  her  being 
implied.'^  This  is  the  case  when  she  holds  him  out  as 
her  agent  in  her  separate  business.^^  She  is  estopped 
by  her  contract  binding  on  her  equitable  separate  prop- 
erty ;  1^  when  she  assents  to  the  sale  of  her  clioses  in 
action,  she  is  estojiped  from  ai^plying  for  her  equity  of 
redemption  out  of  them  ;  ^®  in  equity  as  to  this  property 
she  is  generally  a/emme  sole,  and  is  estojjped  as  such.^^ 
If  slie  can  contract,  slie  can  be  estopi^ed  from  denying  a 
party's  title  to  property  which  she  has  allowed  him  to 
improve  under  claim  of  title  through  her;'*  if  she 
cannot,  she  is  not  bound  even  for  improvements  put 
upon  her  own  property  with  her  consent.^'  j^ji  ^p. 
parent  exception  to  the  rule  laid  down  in  this  section 
is  the  case  where  the  j^roperty  of  a  married  woman  is 
sold  under  void  judicial  proceedings  ;  in  such  case,  if 
she  has  received  the  purchase  money,  she  is  estopped 
f i"om  setting  up  her  title.^"  There  is  a  case  in  which  a 
married  woman  was  held  estopped  from  claiming  her 
dower  by  her  mere  statement  made  during  coverture, 
at  the  sale  of  her  husband's  land,  that  she  would  not 
claim  dower."' 

1  Banner  v.   Beithold,  11  Mo.  App.  351,  358  ;  Powell,  98  Pa.   St. 
403,  413  ;  ante,  i  410. 

2  Nash  V.  Mitchell,  71  N.  Y.  199,  200 ;  27  Am.  Kep.  38  ;  Marable  V. 
Jordan,  5  Humph.  417,  418  ;  42  Am.  I>ec.  441  ;  ante,  i  410. 


605  ESTOPPEiiS.  §  416 

3  Tucker  v.  Coelce,  n2  jriss.  184,  100 ;  Farrr.r  v  Eessoy,  2 1  Vt.  80, 92  ; 
ante,  I  :«1. 

4  Ante,  5  4:2. 

5  Todd  V.  Pitts'ourgh,  19  Ohio  St.  514,  IZi ;  ante,  {  4:i 

6  Oglesbv  r.  Pasco,  79  III.  Ifi4,  IGO.  S.  P.,  Aloxjindor  v.  Saulsburv, 
37  Ala.  375,  378;  Green  !•.  Braiiton,  1  Dev.  Eq.  5110,  50.!;  Rumfeldt  ?'. 
Clemens,  4fi  Pa.  St.  455,  457;  Pettit  v.  Fretz,  33  Pa.  St.  118,  120; 
Glidden  v.  Struplcr,  52  Pa.  St.  400,  403,  406  ;  McLaurin  v.  Wilson,  16 
S.  C.  402,  4 10.    Compare  i^ost,  I  420. 

7  Glidden  v.  Struplcr,  52  Pa.  St.  400,  404. 

8  Seepos?,  JH'C,  41S. 

9  See  cases  siipra,  notes  3-6. 

10  Spafford  v.  Warron,  ■^7  Iowa,  47,  51 ;  wife,  §  3S1. 

11  Dan:i  v.  Cudney,  13  Mich.  239,  242,  243  ;  post,  U  417,  419. 

12  Nash  V.  Mitchell,  71  N.  Y.  19",  200 ;  27  Am.  Rep.  38. 

13  Schwartz  v.  Saunders,  46  i:i.  IS,  24;  Earlv  v.  Rolfo,  !:5  Pa.  St. 
5S,  GO  ;  ante,  ??  84,  88  ;  post,  ?  419. 

14  Bodine  v.  Killeen,  53  N.  Y.  93,  96. 

15  See  Drake  r.  Glover,  30  Ala.  382,  .":0 ;  V.'ood  r.  Terry,  30  Ark. 
389,  393  ;  Schwartz  r.  Saunders,  46  III.  18,  24  ;  Dann  v.  Cudney,  13 
Mich.  2:'n,  242;  Glidden  v.  Struplcr,  52  Pa.  St.  4C0,  400;  O'Brien  v. 
Hilburn,  0  Tex.  297, 299. 

16  Lush,  Law  R.  4  Ch.  App.  591, 602 :  Wright  v.  Arnold,  14  Mon.  B. 
638,642. 

17  See  an</?,  ?  203. 

18  Spafford  v.  Warren,  47  Iowa,  47, 51. 

19  Corning  v.  Fowler,  24  Iowa,  534,537;  mite,  ?  131. 

20  Shivers  v.  Simmons,  54  Miss.  523;  23  Am.  Rep.  372;  Snaith  v. 
Warden,  i:i  Pa.  St.  424,  430;  Mccullough  r.  Wilson,  21  Pa.  St.  436; 
Freeman  Void  Judic.  Sales,  §  4S  ;  8  Am.  Law  Rev.  N.  S.  298,  299. 

21  Connolly  !•.  Branstler,  3  Bush,  702,  703.     But  see  ante  '2  270,  276. 

§  416.  Estoppels  in  pais  against  married  women  — 
False  representations.  —  The  false  rei:iro.scntation.s  of  a 
party  sui  juris  may  afifect  his  rights  and  obligBtions 
either  as  a  contract  or  as  a  tort.^  When  one  repre.sents 
that  the  property  he  sells  is  his  own,  he  warrants  the 
title,  and  if  liis  representation  is  false  he  is  liable  for 
breach  of  contract,  and  is  estopi^ed  from  .setting  np  a  bet- 
ter title  subsequently  acquired.^  Aceompanyinjj  such 
a  warranty  there  may  or  thero  may  not  bo  a  knowledge 
of  the  falsity  of  the  .statement  and  an  actual  intention 
to  deceive.  If  a  representation  is  made  with  Vaq  inten- 
tion of  deceiving  another,  and  such  other  is  deceived  > 


§   416  ESTOPPKLS.  606 

and  acts  on  the  representation,  not  only  may  he  sue  the 
maker  thereof  for  any  damage  that  results,  but  such 
maker  cannot  set  tip  the  falsity  of  the  representation  to 
the  other  party's  damage  —  he  is  estopped  from  alleging 
his  own  frand.3  In  the  case  of  a  party  under  the  dis- 
ability of  coverture  —  a  party  who  at  common  law  is 
liable  for  her  torts*  but  not  on  her  contracts-' — it  is 
necessary  to  determine  whether  the  representation  is  in 
the  nature  of  a  contract  or  tort.  If  there  is  no  guilty 
knowledge  or  fraudulent  intent,  but  the  representation 
is  a  mere  agreement  or  promise  that  a  certain  fact  is 
true,  and  the  other  party,  by  acting  on  this  promise  to 
his  damage,  has  paid  a  consideration  therefor,  the 
representation  can  bind  the  wife  only  as  a  contract,  and 
estop  her  only  if  she  had  the  cajiacity  to  make  such  a 
contract;  6  thus,  the  covenant  of  a  married  woman  in 
her  deed,  that  the  title  is  good,  is  not  binding  on  her  if 
she  has  no  capacity  to  contract,  and  she  is  not  estopped 
thereby  from  setting  up  a  subsequent  title.'  If,  on  the 
other  hand,  there  is  guilty  knowledge  or  fraudulent 
intent,  her  representation  isa  fraud,  and  she  is  estopped 
from  denying  its  truth  ;  *  thus,  where  in  order  to  defraud 
her  husband's  creditors  she  represented  that  property 
of  hers  belonged  to  him,  she  was  estopped  from  after- 
wards, as  against  these  creditors,  setting  up  her  own 
title.8  •But  if  the  false  representation  relates  to  her 
capacity  to  contract,  whether  made  in  good  faith  or 
w'ith  fraudulent  intent,  she  is  not  estopped  thereby  ;^o 
she  cannot  by  her  statements  give  herself  a  capacity 
she  does  not  possess"  —  a  rule  Avhich  applies  equally  to 
parties  under  the  disability  of  infancy  ;^^  thus,  she  is 
not  estopped  by  her  representations  that  she  is  un- 
married,^^ or  that  she  has  separate  property  which  she 
can  charge,"  from  setting  up  her  coverture  when  sued 
on  the  contract,  or  from   showing    that  she  had  no 


607  ESTOPPELS.  ?  417 

separate  property  to  charge.  This,  however,  as  far  as 
]t  applies  to  statements  made  with  the  intention  to 
deceive,  has  been  denied  in  California,  Illinois,  and 
New  Hami^shire.'^  The  representation  by  a,  femme  sole 
that  she  is  married  is  very  different ;  she  is  sui  jiiris, 
and  is  estopjjed  from  denying  coverture.'^  These 
representations  may  be  made  by  conduct  as  well  as  by 
words,  and  the  intent  to  deceive  may  be  inferred ;  so 
that  questions  not  discussed  in  this  section  may  arise, 
and  must  be  separately  treated.*' 

1  See  Oerlesby  v.  Pasco,  79  III.  l&l,  169  ;  Curd  v.  DoiUls,  C  Bush, 
681,  ftS5  ;  ante,  U  ■ilO,  413. 

2  See  Blain  v.  Harrison.  11  111.  384,  386  ;  ante,  §  412. 

3  Hamilton  i'.  Zimmerman,  5  Sneed,  39,  49  ;  ante,  I  414. 

4  VaugUan  v.  Vauderstegen, 2  Drew.  363,  379  ;  ante,  §  66  ;  post,  U  418. 

5  >"orris  v.  Lantz,  18  Md.  260,  263  ;  ante,  U  355-393. 

6  Discussed  ante,  '(  415. 

7  Preston  v.  Evans,  55  Md.  476,  491 ;  ante,  U  3-84, 412. 

8  Discussed  pos?,  ?  418. 

9  Oglesby  v.  Pasco,  79  111.  161, 169, 170  ;  post,  §  418. 

10  Keen  i'.  Hartman,  48  Pa.  St.  497,499.  S.  P.,  Liverpool  v.  Fair- 
hurst,  9  Kx.  422,  429  ;  Caunam  v.  Farmer,  3  Ex.  698  ;  Wright  i'. 
Leonard,  11  Com.  B.  N.  S.  258  ;  Oglesbv  v.  Pasco.  79  111.  IW,  171  ; 
Lowell  V.  Daniels,  2  Gray,  161  ;  Dempsev  v.  Tvler,  3  Diier,  7:'.,  100; 
Wilson  V.  Fuller,  160  How.  Pr.  480,  481  ;  Keen  v.  Coleman,  .■?9  Pa.  St. 
299,  302  ;  Glidden  v.  Simpler,  52  Pa.  St.  400,  406  ;  Mason  v.  Jordan, 
13  B.  I.  193,  195. 

11  Wilson  V.  Fuller,  60  How.  Pr.  480,  481  ;  supra,  n.  10. 

12  Brown  v.  Durham,  1  Boot,  272  ;  Conroe  r.  Birdsall,  1  Johns.  Cas- 
127  ;  1  Am.  Dec.  105  ;  Keeni'.  Hartman,  48  Pa.  St.  497.  499  ;  Houston  v 
Turk,  7  Yerg.  13. 

13  Keen  v.  Coleman,  39  Pa.  St.  299,  302 ;  supra,  n.  10. 

14  Patterson  v.  Frazer,  5  La.  An.  586,  587  ;  Erwin  v.  McCalop,  5 
La.  An.  173. 

15  Bels  V.  Lawrence,  63  Cal.  129,  1.35 ;  Patterson  v.  Lawrence, 
90  111.  174, 179  ;  32  Am.  Rep,  22  ;  Bead  v.  Hall,  57  JS.  H.  482,  483. 

16  Mace  v.  Cadell,  Cowp.  232  ;  Batthews  v.  Galindo,  1  Moore  &  P. 
565  ;  Langford  v.  Foot,  2  Moore  &  S.  349. 

17  Post,  ii  4V-419. 

§  417.  Estoppels  in  pais  against  married  women  —  Si- 
lence, acquiescence.  —  Since  such  estoppels  as  arise  out  of 
a  failure  to  assert  a  right,  or  out  of  silence  and  acqui- 
Bscence  in  the  rights  claimed    by  others,  arise  only 


g  417  ESTOPPELS.  608 

because  front  such  silence  and  acquiescence  a  repre- 
sentation is  implied/  it  is  clear  that  a  married  -woman 
can  be  bound  by  her  silence  and  acquiescence  only  in 
cases  when  she  would  have  bound  had  she  expressly 
made  the  statement  which  is  implied. ^    Thus,  when  a 
married  woman   makes  an  invalid    deed    she  is  not 
estopi)ed,  by  afterwards  recognizing  its  A'alidity  and 
allowing  the   grantee  to   improve  the  property,  from 
asserting  her  title,  for  she  would  not  be  estopped  from 
by  expressly  telling  the  grantee  that  she  would  never 
claim  any  title  thereto  ;'  but  if  she  could  contract  as  a 
femme  sole,  and  allowed  her  grantee  to  improve  prop- 
erty on  the  faith  of  a  title  given  him  by  her,  she  could 
not  deny  the  validity  of  that   title.*    Nor,  if  she  can 
grant  a  right  of  way  only  in  the  mode  prescribed  by 
statute,  can  she  estop  herself  from  closing  up  a  way  by 
allowing  it   to  be  used  Avithout  complaint.^    When  a 
party  not  her  husband,  in  her  presence,  makes  a  claim 
of  right  inconsistent  with  her  rights,  and  she  allows 
another  to  act  upon  such  claim  of  right  without  setting 
up  her  rights,  she  is  or  is  not  estopped  from  afterwards 
setting  up  her  rights,  just  as  she  would  have  been  had 
she  expressly  said  that  she  had    no  rights.*     Thus, 
when  another  claims  the  right  to  collect  money  due  to 
her,  and  such  money  is  jiaid  to  him  in  her  presence, 
she  is  estopped  from  denying  his  right  to  receive  it:' 
she  has  by  her  conduct  made  him  her  agent.^    In  some 
cases  silence  can  speak  as  loudlj^  as  words,  and  when 
it    appears    that    a    married  woman  Avas    silent  with 
respect  to  a  matter  not  conneetetl  with  her  contract, 
knowing  her  rights,  and  that  her  silence  was  relied  on 
as  a  disclaimer  of  right  in  herself,  and  an  assertion  of 
right  in  another,  her  intention  to  deceive  must  be  im- 
plied, and  she  is  bound  by  her  tort  just  as  she  Avould 
have  been  had  she  expressly  asserted  that  the  title  was^ 


609  ESTOPPELS.  §  418 

in  such  other  person.^  The  usual  case  in  whicli  these 
questions  arise  is  wliere  the  wife  is  silent  while  her 
husband  asserts  rights  inconsistent  with  her  own.^" 

1  See  Crouse  v.  Morse,  49  Iowa,  382,  3S.~,  388  ;  Brown,  35  X.  Y.  519, 
541  ;  Hamilton  i\  Zimmerman,  5  Sneed,  39, 48. 

2  See  Marable  v.  Jordan,  5  Humph.  417,  418;  42  Am.  Dec.  441; 
I'arrar  v.  Bessey,  24  Vt.  89,  92  ;  ante,  i  415. 

3  Glidden  v.  Strupler,  52  Pa.  St.  400,  404. 

4  Spafford  v.  AVarren,  47  Iowa,  47,  51. 

5  McBeth  v.  Trabne,  69  Mo.  642,  657 ;  Todd  v.  Pittsburgh,  19  Ohio 
St.  514,  625,  526. 

6  See  Savage  v.  Foster,  9  Mod.  35, 37  ;  Lush,  Law  R.  4  Ch.  App.  591 ; 
Bank  v.  Lee,  13  Peters,  107,  118,  121  ;  Mover  v.  Adams,  2  Fed.  Rep. 
182,187;  Drake  v.  Glover,  30  Ala.  382,  3H0";  Seeders  v.  Allen,  98  111. 
468,  471 ;  Hackett  v.  Bailey,  86  111.  74.  77  ;  Schwartz  !\  Saunders,  4611!. 
18,24;  Anderson  r.  .\rmistead,  69  111.  452,  455;  Wilson  v.  Loomis,  55 
111.  3o2,  3.57  ;  Peck  v.  Hensley ,  21  Ind.  344,  345  ;  Catherwood  v.  Watson. 
65  Ind.  576,  580;  Gatlinif  v.  Rodman,  6  Ind.  289,293;  Stater.  Hollo- 
wav,  8  Blackf.  45,  47  ;  ('orning  v.  Fowler,  24  Iowa,  5S4,  587;  Crouse 
V.  Morse,  49  Iowa,  3^2,  3sS  ;  Jones  v.  Brandt,  59  Iowa,  3.32,  341  ;  Wright 
V.  Arnold,  14  Mon.  B.  6:J8,  642 ;  Davis  v.  Tighe,  8  Mon.  B.  539,  543  ; 
Kangely  v.  Spring,  21  Jle.  130,  loS  ;  Dann  v.  Cudnev,  13  Mich.  239,  241; 
McBeth  V.  Trabne,  69  Mo.  642,  657  ;  Carpenter,  27  N.  J.  Eq.  502,  .504  ;  25 
?I.  J.  Eq.  194,  201  ;  Bradstreet  v.  Pratt,  17  Wend.  44,  46  r  Todd  r.  Pitts- 
burgh, 19  Ohio  St.  514,  525  ;  Earlv  v.  Rolfe,  95  Pa.  St.  58, 60  ;  McClure  v. 
Doutbitt,  6  Pa.  St.  414,  417  ;  Smith  r.  Armstrong,  24  Wis.  446,  450. 

7  Early  v.  Rolfe,  95  Pa.  St.  58,  60,  61. 

8  Dann  v.  Cudnev,  13  Mich.  239,  244  ;  Ludner  r.  Lahler,  51  Barb 
322,  324  ;  City  v.  Raven,  5  McCord,  46-5,  469  ;  ante,  U  84,  86. 

9  Oglesbv  r.  Pasco,  79  III.  164, 169  ;  Davis  v.  Tingle,  8  Mon.  B.  539. 
543  ;  2)"st,  U  J18,  419. 

10    Discussed  7Jo«^  ?  419. 

§  418.  Estoppels  in  pais  against  married  women  —  Pure 
torts.  —  Coverture  cannot  be  invoked  as  a  cloalc  for 
wrong  doing,!  ^nd  so,  even  at  common  law,  a  married 
woman  is  liable  jointly  with  her  husband  for  hor  torts.- 
But  as  lier  contracts  were  voi<I,  and  as  tlie  law  couid 
not  allow  her  by  her  mere  statements  to  give  herself 
capacity,  it  was  held  that  she  v,-as  not  liable  for  torts 
consisting  of  false  and  fraudulent  representations  tliat 
she  was  unmarried  and  could  contract,  but  only  for 
pure  torts.3  Since  an  estoppel  arising  out  of  tort  is 
founded  on  the  person's  liability''  for  the  tort,*  it  has  been 
held,  generally,  that  married  women  are  not  estopped 


^    419  KSTOPPELS.  GIO 

by  their  false  and  fraudulent  representations  that  tliey 
are  unmarried,  or  have  property  which  they  can  charge 
by  contract ;  tlaougli  tlie  contrary  rule  prevails  in  Cali- 
fornia, Illinois,  and  New  Hampshire.'  But  she  is  es- 
topped by  any  tort  unconnected  with  her  contract,^ 
and  by  her  tort  connected  therewith  if  tlie  contract  is 
validJ  A  representation  that  certain  property  of  liers 
is  her  husband's,  made  for  the  purpose  of  deceiving 
builders,  is  a  pure  tort,  and  estops  her ;  ^  and  so  are 
any  false  and  fraudulent  representations  of  tliis  kind." 
She  is  estopped  by  a  statement  tliat  a  bill  of  exchange 
has  been  accepted  by  her  husband,  wliich  statement 
led  to  the  discount  of  the  bill,io  and  by  statements  made 
under  oath.^^ 

1  Rusk  V.  Feiiton,  14  Bush,  490,  493  ;  29  Am.  Rep.  41^.. 

2  Vaughan  v.  Vanderstegen,  2  Drew.  363,  373  ;  ante,  J  03 ;  }>ost, 
U  421-426. 

3  Adelphi  i\  Fairhurst,  9  Ex.  422,429  ;  Owens  v.  S!iodgrass,6  Duua, 
229, 230 ;  Keen  v.  Hartman,  4i  Pa.  St.  497, 4J9  ;  ante,  I  410. 

1  Ante,  11  410,  4\4. 

5  Cases  cited  ante,  l  416. 

6  Wright  V.  Leonard,  8  Jur.  N.  S.  415,  41G"  Jones  v.  Kearney,  1 
Dru.  &  War.  i:i4,  167  ;  Lush.  Law  R.  4  Ch.  App.  5j1,  597;  Matthews  v. 
ilurchison.  17  Fed.  Rep.  760,  766  ;  Oglesbv  v.  Pasco,  79  111.  164,  169  ; 
Davis  V.  Tingle,  8  Men.  B.  MU,  i>43 ;  Carpenter,  2.-)  N.  J.  Eq.  194,  201 ; 
Fowles  !'.  Fisher,  77  X.  C.  437,  443,  444 ;  McCullough  v.  Wilson,  21  Pa, 
St.  436,  442  ;  Mason  v.  Jordan,  13  R.  I.  193, 195. 

7  See  Lathrop  v.  Soldiers,  45  Ga.  433,  486. 

8  Oglesby  v.  Pasco,  79  III.  164,  160  •  O'Brien  v.  Hilbuni,  9  Tex.  297. 
299. 

9  See  cases  cited  supra,  n.  6 ;  ante,  i  417,  n.  6. 

10  Wright  V.  Leonard,  8  Jur.  X.  S.  415,  416  (divided  court). 

11  Lathrop  v.  Soldiers,  45  Ga»  483,  486 ;  Cooley  v.  Steele,  2  Head, 
605,608. 

2  419.  Effact  of  acts  of  husband  as  estoppels  against 
wife.  —  In  considering  the  etlect  of  a  liusband's  acts 
and  representations  as  estoppels  against  his  wife,  it 
must  be  remembered :  (1)  That  at  common  law  the 
wife  was  under  the  control  of  her  liusband,and  subject 
tohiswiU;!  (2}  that  the  husband  is  in  somo  respects 


611  ESTOPPELS.  2    419 

the  agent  in  law  of  his  wife  ;  ^  and  (3)  tliat  the  iiusband 
is  very  commonly  the  wife's  agent  in  fact.'  In  the  first 
place,  owing  to  this  fiction  of  coercion,  she  is  prima 
facie  not  bound  by  any  statement  made  by  her  husband 
in  her  presence;^  it  is  presumed  that  she  is  silent 
througli  fear,  and  tlirougli  deference  to  her  husband  as 
her  husband  ;  ^  and  it  must  affirmatively  apj^ear  that 
she  was  actuated  by  otlier  motives  —  that  is  to  say,  tliat 
she  intended  to  deceive/  or  tiiat  she  voluntarily  made 
her  liusband  her  agent  and  mouthpiece  ; '  tlie  question 
of  motive,  it  seems,  being  a  question  of  fact  for  the 
jury .8  Since  a  married  woman  is  liable  for  a  tort  com- 
mitted in  lier  husband's  presence  only  if  lier  active 
jjarticipation  therein  is  affirmatively  made  to  appear,' 
it  is  clear  tliat  slie  sliould  not  be  bound  by  his  fraud 
simply  on  account  of  lier  non-interference.^"  In  the 
second  place,  leaving  out  of  consideration  the  question 
of  coercion,  she  is  estopped  by  her  husband's  acts  only 
■when  he  is  her  agent  in  law  or  in  fact.'^  As  to  her 
personalty,  if  slie  stands  by  and  allows  her  husband  to 
sell  it,  and  the  purchaser  relies  on  lier  silence,  she  is 
estojiped  from  afterwards  setting  up  her  title,''^  because 
at  common  law  her  husband  had  the  right  to  sell  it 
without  her  consent,^'  and  because,  under  the  statutes, 
she  has  usually  the  right  to  sell  her  separate  property, 
and  therefore  to  sell  it  through  an  agent,  and  by  her 
presence  and  silence  she  constitutes  her  husband  her 
agent ;  '*  and  so,  at  common  law,  she  was  estopped  from 
claiming  her  equity  of  a  settlement  out  of  her  choses 
in  action,  if  she  allowed  her  husband  to  disjiose  of  them 
in  her  presence  without  making  any  objection.'^  Thus, 
she  is  estopped  by  her  husband's  sale  of  her  horse,'^  or 
of  her  negroes,''  or  by  his  collection  of  her  funds,'^  if 
she  was  present  and  made  no  objection.  But  owing  to 
the  intimacy  of  the  marriage  relation,  and  to  the  fact 


I    419  ESTOPPELS.  612 

that  it  i.-j  natul'al  and  proper  that  a  husband  should  to 
some  extent  iwssess  and  manage  his  wife's  property,^* 
it  is  not  a  fraud  on  his  creditors  for  his  wife  merely  to 
allow  him  to  possess  and  manage  her  property,  and 
she  is  not  estopped,  as  a  stranger  would  be,  from  set- 
ting up  lier  title  to  tlie  same.'^*  Her  husband's  creditors 
should  inquire  of  her  as  to  her  rights,  and  in  such  case, 
if  she  or  her  husband,  in  her  presence,  should  inalce 
any  false  statements,  it  is  clear  that  this  would  be  a 
fraud  and  she  would  be  estopped.^^  There  is  no  reason 
why  a  married  woman  should  not  lend  her  property  to 
her  husband  to  use  in  his  business,^^  and  no  reason 
why,  if  she  has  made  no  exjiress  disclaimer  of  title,  and 
has  not  knowingly  allowed  his  creditors  to  give  him 
credit,  supposing  her  to  have  no  rights,^^  she  should  be 
estopped  from  having  back  her  own.  Of  course,  if  she 
has  made  him  her  general  agent  with  respect  to  prop- 
erty over  which  she  lias  the  rights  of  a  femme  sole,  she 
is  estopjjed  from  going  behind  his  acts,  so  that  she  cannot 
claim  the  repayment  of  money  paid  to  him  as  her 
recognized  agent,^'  and  if  she  has  put  joroperty  in  his 
hands  to  do  business  with,  not  as  a  loan  but  as  capital, 
she  cannot,  as  against  the  creditors  of  that  business, 
claim  the  property  back.^  With  respect  to  her  real 
estate,  diftcrent  considerations  arise :  The  husband 
could  not  dispose  of  the  wife's  interest  at  common 
law,-fi  and  even  under  most  modern  statutes  she  can 
dispose  of  it  only  in  the  mode  prescribed  by  statute ;  '^'' 
but  if  she  and  he  join  in  a  contract  which  is  void  as  to 
her.,ho  i.^  nevertheless  bound, ^^  and  is  estopped  tliereby ; 
and  if  ho  must  join  with  her  in  order  to  enable  her  to 
set  up  her  rights,  tlie  fact  that  he  is  estoi^ped  may 
deprive. her  of  her  remedy.-'^  By  allowing  him  to  take 
the  title  to  her  realty  in  his  own  name,  slie  estops  her- 
self from  setting  up  her  title  as  against  bona  fide  jjur- 


613  ESTOPPELS.  §   419' 

chasers  for  value,'*  or  creditors  with  a  lien,'^  but  not 
from  accepting  afterwards  tlie  legal  title,  even  though 
the  husband  is  insolvent.*'^  When  she  owns  realty  or 
personalty  as  a  femme  sole,  and  allows  her  liusband  to 
hold  Iiimself  out  as  owner  thereof,  she  is  estopped  by 
all  his  acts  with  respect  tliereto,^-^ 

1  Scarborough  v.  Watkins,  0  Mon.  B.  540,  M5  ;  50  Am.  Dee.  528; 
ante.il  80,62, SSI. 

2  Ante,  ?§  82,  8-1. 

3  Ante,  U  8-»-S8. 

4  Bank  r.  Lee,  1.1  Peters,  107,  118,  121  ;  Drake  v.  Glover,  30  Ala. 
382,390  ;  Murray  I'.  Fo.x,  II  Mo. .5.m,.56.5  ;  Palmer  y.  Cross,  l.Smedes&M. 
48,  6S  ;  Carpenter,  27  >f.  J.  Kq.  .502,  .t04. 

5  Drake  v.  Glover,  30  Ala.  3S2,  390  ;  supra,  n.  4. 

6  Drake  v.  Glover,  30  Ala.  382,  391  ;  O'Brien  v.  Ililburn,  9  Tex. 
297,  299. 

7  See  Dann  v.  Cudney,  13  Mich.  2.39,  241  ;  ante,  U  84,  86. 

8  Early  v.  Rolfe,  95  Pa.  St.  58,  61  ;  onte,  S  86. 

9  Ante,  \  66  ;  post,  \  421. 

10  Carpenter,  27  N.  J.  Eq.  502,  504  ;  supra,  n.  4.  But  see  .State  i'- 
Hollo\vay,i<  Blackf.  15,  47. 

11  See  McCaa  v.  Woolf,  42  Ala.  389  ;  Schwartz  v.  Saunders,  46  1U« 
18  24  ;  Galling  v.  Kodman,  6  Ind.  289,  293  ;  ante,  I  85. 

12  Drake  v.  Glover,  .30  Ala.  .182,  390  ;  infra,  notes  14-18. 

13  McCaa  v.  Woolf,  42  Ala,  389  ;  ante,  U  103,  170,  176. 

14  Wortraan  v.  Price,  47  111.  22,24;  Schwartz  i'.  .Saunders,  46  111. 
IH,  24  ;  Daim  i>.  Cudney,  13  Mich.  23!»,  244  ;  Lndner  v.  Lahler,  51  Barb. 
322,  324  ;  City  v  Raven,  5  McCord,  465,  46J  ;  Early  v.  Rolfe,  95  Pa.  .St. 
58,  60  :  ante,  H  84-,88. 

15  Lush,  Law  R.  4  Ch.  App.  .591,  .597  ;  Wright  v.  Arnold,  14  Mon.  B. 
6:«,  642. 

16  Dann  v.  Cudney,  13  Mich.  239,  241-24.X 

17  O'Brien  i>.  Hilburn,  9  Te.x.  297,  299. 

18  Early  v.  Rolfe,  95  Pa.  .St.  .>S,  60. 

19  Discussed  ante,  U  118  rt-121. 

20  Jones  v.  Brandt,  59  Iowa,  332,  341 ;  ante,  ?  121. 

21  See  Oglesby  v.  Pasco,  79  111.  164,  169  ;  ante,  U  -IIG,  418. 

22  Hoe  ante,  U  4.5,  87. 

23  See  ante,  ??  416,  418. 

24  Early  v.  Rolfe,  95  Pa,  St. .'«,  60  ;  ante,  I  85. 

25  Wilson  V.  Loomis,  -55  111,  3.52,  3.57. 

26  Hall  V.  Callahan,  6!;  Mo.  316,  324  ;  ante,  ??  8.5, 143. 

27  Gebl)  V.  Rose,  40  Md.  387,  392  ;  ante,  H  400,  401,  412. 

28  See  atite,  5?  382,  408. 

29  Hufif  I).  Price,  .50  Mo.  228,  230. 

H.  <fe  W.— 52. 


2  420  ESTOPPELS.  614 

30  See  Darnaby,  14  Bush,  4S5,  488  ;  ante,  5  132. 

31  Besson  ?-.  Eveland,  26  X.  J.  Eq.  468,  473  ;  Read}'  v.  Bragg,  1  Head, 
511,515;  ante,  i  132. 

32  Summers  v.  Hoover,  42  Inrl.  153,  157 ;  Bancroft  v.  Curtis,  108 
Mass.  47,49;  Payne  v.  Twyman,  68  Mo.  339, 340  ;  Syracuse  i'.  Wiug, 
85  N.  Y.  421,  426. 

33  See  Anderson  v.  Armistead,  69  III.  452,  455. 

g  420.  Estoppels  against  married  women  arising  from 
acts  done  after  tlie  dissolution  of  coverture.  —  By  an  act 
after  the  dissolution  of  coverture,  a  widow  may  estop 
herself  from  setting  up  the  invalidity  of  an  act  done 
during  coverture. i  Thus,  if  a  widow,  who  has  during 
coverture  executed  an  invalid  release  of  dower,  stands 
by  and  allows  her  late  husband's  property  to  be  sold 
clear  of  dower,  she  is  estopped  from  setting  up  her 
right  to  dower ;  ^  so  if  a  widow  continues  to  hold  and 
enjoy  the  consideration  of  jiroperty  disposed  of  by  her 
during  coverture  by  an  invalid  instrument,  slie  is  es- 
topped from  setting  up  her  title  to  the  property  so  dis- 
posed of.^  But  unless  there  is  some  new  act — some 
new  consideration  or  deed  —  a  widow  is  not  estopi^ed 
hy  acts  done  during  coverture  whicli  did  not  estop  her 
as  a  married  woman.* 

1  H.-irt  V.  Giles,  67  Mo.  175,  170  ;  Reed  v.  Morrison,  12  Serg.  &  R. 
18,  24  ;  Bullock  V.  Grillin,  1  Strob.  Eq.  60, 65  ;  ante,  U  267, 275,  276. 

2  Hart  v.  Giles,  67  Mo.  175,  170. 

3  Bullock  V.  Griffin,  1  Strob.  Eq,  60,  65. 

4  See  ante,  U  366, 402. 


615  TORTS   OF   MARRIED   WOMEN.  ^   421 

CHAPTER  XXIV. 

TORTS   OF   MARRIED   WOMEX. 

§  421.  General  consirterations. 

2  422.  Antenuptial  torts. 

?  42;?.  Postnuptial  torts. 

I  424.  Torts  connected  with  contract. 

?  42.5.  Liability  for,  how  enforced. 

§  421.  General  considerations  relating  to  torts  of  married 
women.  —  Wrongs  and  contract  are  very  ditterently 
regarded  b3'  the  law,  and  coverture  gives  a  wife  no 
imniiinitj'  from  responsibility  for  her  wrong-doing;' 
whatever  immunity  .slie  enjoys  results,  not  from  the 
disabilities  of  coverture,  but  from  the  fact  that  v/ives 
are  subject  to  their  husbands,^  and  that  the  law  pre- 
sumes that  wrongs  done  by  them  in  their  husbands' 
presence  were  done  by  the  command  and  coercion  of 
the  latter.^  Except  -when  the  act  is  committed  in  the 
husband's  presence,  a  wife  is  as  fully  responsible  for 
her  torts  as  Sifemme  sole,*  tliough  tlie  procedure  against 
her  is,  of  course,  different.'  As  heretofore  shown,  the 
husband  is  liable,  as  husband  or  as  joint  wrong-doer, 
for  all  torts  of  his  wife,*  His  liability  is  co-extensive 
witli  hers,^  and  when  he  is  sued  as  husband  with  her, 
he  cannot  show  that  he  tried  to  prevent  the  tort,  even 
in  mitigation  of  damages.*  But  though  his  liability 
may  cease  with  the  dissolution  of  coverture,  hers  does 
not.'    His  liability  is  not  abolished  by  iinjjlieation.i" 

1  Ilawli  V.  Harnian,  5  Binn.  43, 45. 

2  See  ante,  H  3:),  02,  41!)  ;  }r>st,  ?  427  ;  infra,  n.  3. 

3  Zeliff  V.  Jennings,  61  Tex.  45S,  471  ;  1  Blsh.  JL  W.  I  703. 

4  Discussed  jiost,  H  422—124. 

5  Discussed  post,  5  425. 

6  Discussed  ante,  I  66. 


?2  432-423      TORTS  of  married  avoien.  616 

7  Austin  %\  Wilson,  4  C'ush.  273,  27o ;  Zeliff  i'.  Jennings,  61  Tex. 
458,  471. 

8  Yeates  v.  Reed,  4  Blackf.  4G3,  4&5. 

9  Rowing  IT.  Manly,  49  N.  Y.  192,  201  ;  10  Am.  Rep.  346. 
10    Zelifif  V.  Jennings,  CI  Tex.  4.5S,  471  ;  ante,  \  06. 

\  422.  Antenuptial  torts  of  married  women.  —  For  torts 
of  anj"  kind,  except  those  against  the  man  she  inarries,i 
committed  before  marriage,  a  woman  remains  liable 
after  her  marriage ;  ^  and  her  husband  is  generally 
liable  therefor  witli  lier.^ 

1  See  ante,  \  49. 

2  Hawk  V.  Harman,  5  Binn.  43,  44  ;  ante,  ?  66. 

3  IJiscussed  ante,  \  66  ;  post,  425. 

\  423.  Postnuptial  torts  of  married  women.  —  For  all 
torts  committed  by  a  married  woman  during  coverture, 
in  person,  except  sucli  as  are  committed  under  the  co- 
ercion of  her  liusband,^  and  sucli  as  are  intimately 
connected  with  her  invalid  contracts,^  and  such  as  are 
committed  against  lier  husband,*  slie  is  liable  as  fully 
as  if  unmarried.*  Thus,  she  may  be  sued,  and  a  judg- 
ment obtained  may  be  satisfied  out  of  all  her  property, 
for  assault  and  battery,*  for  trespass,'  for  conversion,^ 
for  slander,^  for  fraud  and  false  and  fraudulent  repre- 
sentations unconnected  with  her  invalid  contracts, ^"  for 
l)urning  property,''  for  poisoning  geese, ''^  etc.  But  at 
common  law  she  could  not  be  hold  responsible  for  the 
act  of  another  as  her  agent, '^  because  she  could  not  con- 
tract, and  therefore  could  not  appoint  an  agent  ;'*  still, 
so  far  as  she  may,  under  statutes,  appoint  an  agent,  or 
act  by  agent,  she  may  be  responsible  for  agent's 
torts.'*  When  the  act  complained  of  Avas  committed 
in  the  presence  of  her  husband,  the  presumption  is 
that  it  was  committed  by  her  tlirough  the  authority 
and  coercion  of  her  husband,  and  that  she  is  not  liable 
at  all ;  '*  ])ut   this  j)resumi)tion   maj'  be   rebutted  by 


617  TORTS   OF   MARRIED   AVOMEN.  §   424 

showing  tiiat  she  actively  and  voluntarily  participated 
in  the  wrong,  and  in  such  case  she  is  as  fully  respon- 
sible as  if  her  husband  had  been  absent." 

1  Estill  V.  Fort,  2  Dana,  237,  238  ;  infra,  notes  13,  14. 

2  Nolan  v.  Traber,  49  Md.  460,  46^  ;  33  Am.  Rep.  277  ;  infra,  notes 
16,  17. 

3  Barnes  v.  Harris,  Busb.  lo,  Ifi  ;  poxt,  J  424. 

4  Abbott,  67  Me.  30t,  307  ;  24  .\m.  Rep.  27  ;  anie,  ?  4S. 

5  Wright  V.  Leoiiiir'l,  11  Com.  B.  X.  S.  2M,  268 ;  30  Law  J.  Com.  P. 
36.5;  Hall  n.  White,  27  Conn.  488,  4;i4 ;  Veates  v.  Reeil,4  Blacl^f.  463, 
465;  Clement  %'.  Wafer,  12  La.  An.  6.»a,  601;  ca.ses  ante,  I  66;  iiifrti, 
notes  6-12 

6  Roaflcap  v.  Sipe,  6  Gratt.  213,  217.  See  Cassin  v.  Delanev,:!?  X.V. 
178  ;  Simmons  v.  Brown,  5  R.  I.  2'j;). 

7  Bailev  r.  Houston,  .t.S  Mo.  361,  367  ;  Carter  r.  Jackson,  56  X.  H. 
366,  368  ;  Vanneman  v.  Powers,  56  N.  Y.  39,  42  ;  Hawk  v.  Harman,  5 
Binn.  43,  44. 

8  Catterall  v.  FCen.von,  3  Afl.  &  E.  X.  8.  310 ;  2  Gale  &  B.  345  : 
Estill  I'.  Fort,  2  Dana,  2:17,  238  ;  Tol>ev  v.  Smith,  15  Gray,  .535  ;  Heckl.^ 
V.  Lurvev,  101  Ma.ss.  :i44  ;  3  Am.  Rep.  .366  ;  Peak  i\  Lemon,  1  Laiis. 
295  ;  Rowing  v.  Mauly,  49  X.  Y.  1112,  198,  199  ;  10  Am.  Rep.  346. 

9  Baker  v.  Young,  44  III.  42, 48  :  McElfresh  ?•.  Kirkendall,  36  Iowa, 
224,  228  ;  Tail  i\  Culbertson,  .57  Barb.  !i,  10  ;  Fowler  v.  Chichester,  26 
Ohio  St.  9,  14  ;  Roadcap  i'.  Sipe,  G  Gratt.  213,  217. 

10  Baum  V.  Mullen,  47  N.  Y.  .577,  .579.  See  Vanghan  r.  Vander- 
stegen,  2  Drew.  363,  379 ;  Davis  i\  Tingle,  8  Mon.  B.  539,  543  ;  post,  I  424. 

11  Ball  V.  Bennett,  21  Ind.  427,  428. 

12  Matthews  v.  Fiestel,  2  Smith,  E.  D.  tlO,  91. 

13  Rawlings  v.  Bell,  I  Com.  B.  9.59  ;  Estill  v.  Fort,  2  Dana,  2.37,  2.38  : 
Coke  Litt.  i  274,  n.  4,  \  678  ;  in/j-a,  n.  1.5. 

14  Rawlings  v.  Bell,  1  Com.  B.  9.59  ;  ante,  \  3»M. 

15  Furguson  i'.  Brooks,  67  Me.  251,  2.58,  2.59  ;  Vanneman  v.  Powers, 
.56  X.  Y.  39.  43  ;  Baum  i'.  Mullen,  47  JS.  Y.  577,  579  ;  Graves  v.  Spier,  ai 
Barb.  :J49,  386  ;  ante,  U  8.5,  88,  mi. 

16  Nolan  r.  Traber,  43  Md.  460,  463  ;  33  Am.  Rep.  277  ;  ante,  I  6S. 

17  Carleton  v.  Haywood,  49  N.  H.  314,  318,  319  ;  ante,  \  66. 

?  424.  Torts  of  married  womaa  connected  with  invalid 
contracts.  —  For  her  torts,  .so  intimately  connected  with 
her  invalid  contracts  that  in  order  to  hold  her  liable 
for  them  her  invalid  contract  Avould  have  to  be  sub- 
stantialh'^  enforced,  a  married  woman  is  not  responsi- 
bie.i  TIius,  she  cannot  be  sued  for  getting  credit  by 
false  and  fraudulent  representations  that  she  is  un- 
married,-'or  has  property  she  can  charge,^  or  for  mis- 


I  425  TORtS    OF   JIAKRIED    AVOMEX.  618 

using  property  of  which  she  is  a  bailee/  or  for 
misappropriating  inoney  intrusted  to  her.*  But  if  her 
contract  is  valid,  the  rule  does  not  apply;  thus,  she  is 
liable  for  false  and  fraudulent  representations  made  in 
etiecting  a  valid  sale  of  her  separate  proiierty.fi 

1  Liverpool   r.    Fairhursrt,  9   Ex.   422,   42^) ;   Wright  r.  Leonard, 

I I  Cora.  B.  >'.  S.  2.>S,  2fi^  ;  Cannam  v.  Farmer,  .■?  Ex.  C;w ;  Zi^genhiigen  v. 
Church,  5  Ch.  L.  N.  :K4  :  Ogleshr  v.  Pa.sco,  79  III.  Ifi4,  171  ;  Owens  v. 
Siiodgrass,  0  Duna,  a;:1,  2^.0;  Lowell  r.  Daniels,  2  Gray,  161  ;  Andrews 
/-.  Ormsbee,  II  Mo.  400,  402  ;  Ciirkton  r.  Haywood,  ■!■>  N.  H.  314,  320; 
Demiisev  v.  Tyler,  3  Duer,  Tl,  100;  Wilson  r.  Fuller,  60  How.  Pr. 
4-0,  4S;i  ; 'Barnes  r.  H;,rri.'!,  Busb.  1.7. 1'? ;  Keen  r.  Coleman,  3!)  Fix.  St. 
2lfl.  mi;  Keen  r.  Hartman,  4S  Pa.  St.  497,  4W  ;  Glidrten  v  Simpler, 
52  Pa.  St.  400,  404;  Mason  7-.  Jordan,  13  R.  1. 1:«.  I!i5  ;  Woodward  r. 
Barnes,  4fi  Vt.  33fi ;  14  Am.  Rpp.  fiifi ;  ante,  ?  416.  Bnt  s-^e  Reis  v, 
Lawrence,  6:5  Cal.  129,  I.S-t  ;  Patterson  v.  Lawrence,  UO  IlL  174,  179  ; 
32  Am.  Rep.  22  ;  Read  i\  Hall,  57  X.  H.  482,  4S3. 

2  Liverpool  r.  Fairhurst,  9  Ex.  422, 429 ;  lupra,  n.  1. 

3  See  Patterson  v.  Frazer,  5  La.  An.  586,  .iS" 

4  Barnes  r.  Harris,  Bnsb.  15, 16. 

5  Andrews  r.  Ormsbee.  11  Mo.  400,  402  ;  Carleton  v.  Haywood 
49  N.  H.  314,  320. 

6  Baum  v.  Mullen,  47  N.  Y.  577,  579. 

I  425.  Enforcement  of  marriad  women's  liability  for 
tort.  —  Independently  of  .statute  a  married  woman  can- 
not be  sued  alone,'  and  therefore  in  all  suits  against 
her  for  torts  her  husband  must  be  joinded.^  He  may 
bo  joined  simply  because  he  is  her  husband* — as  in  the 
case  df  her  antenuptial  torts,*  or  of  torts  committed  out 
of  his  presence  and  with  which  he  has  nothijig  to  do,^ 
or  as  a  joint  wrong-doer* — as  Avhen  they  both  were 
concerned  in  the  tort.'  His  liability  in  .these  cases  has 
been  eLscAvhere  discussed.^  It  i.s  said  that  for  some 
wi'ongs  there  cannot  be  a  joint  suit,  because  such  wrongs 
do  not  admit  of  joint  commission* — slander  being  such 
a  Vv'rong.'o  And  it  is  said  that  in  even  a  joint  suit  for 
conversion  against  husband  and  wife,  the  allegation 
should  be  that  the  conversion  "was  to  the  use  of  the 
husband,  not  to  "their  "  or  to  "  her  "  use."  When  the 
husband  is  joined  as  husband  only,  it  should  be  alleged 


619  TORTS   OF   MARRIED   WOMEN.  ?   425 

that  the  wrong  was  committed  by  the  wife.^-  The  wife 
should  be  summoned,  though  by  an  appearance  for 
her  such  summons  is  waived  ,^^  and  the  husband  has 
full  power  to  appear  for  her  and  to  manage  the  suit, 
and  she  is  bound  tliough  the  suit  be  lost  tlirough  his 
negligence ;  1^  this  applies,  of  course,  only  to  suits 
prosecuted  as  at  common  law.^^  All  evidence  which 
would  have  been  admissible  against  the  wife,  could 
she  have  been  sued  alone,  is  admissible  against  the 
husband  wlien  he  is  sued  witli  lier.^i^  When  they  are 
sued  jointly,  one  may  be  acquitted  and  the  otlier  found 
guiltj^^^  —  tliough  the  acquittal  of  tlae  husband  will  not 
save  him  from  judgment  on  account  of  his  being  hus- 
band, but  onl}'  from  judgment  as  joint  wrong-doer.^^ 
The  judgment  is  usually  entered  against  them  both 
generally,*^  and  may  be  satisfied  out  of  the  property 
of  the  husband,  or  the  wife,  or  both. 2"  The  husband's 
property  may  be  taken, '-'i  and  the  wife's  also,  whether 
separate,--  or  held  as  at  common-law  ;2^  a  judgment  of 
this  kind  estoi^s  her  as  if  she  were  sole.-'  But,  it  is 
said  in  Texas,  the  judgment  may  du-ect  her  property 
to  be  first  exhausted.^  In  some  States,  tliough  the 
husband  must  still  be  joined  for  conformity,  he  is  by 
statute  saved  from  liability.^^  She  may  be  sued  alone 
after  the  dissolution  of  coverture — by  divorce,-^  or  by 
actual  or  civil  death. ^*  So  when  she  may  bj''  statute 
sue  and  be  sued  alone,  her  torts  maj'^  be  enforced 
against  her  alone.^  And  when  she  may  be  sued  alone 
in  resiiect  to  all  matters  relating  to  her  separate  prop- 
erty, she  may  be  sued  alone  for  all  torts  connected  with 
it;^"  for  example,  for  setting  fire  to  her  separate  house 
and  thus  burning  another's  furniture  ;  ^'  for  a  fraud 
connected  with  the  sale  of  her  separate  lands  ;^2  for 
injuries  resulting  to  persons  using  her  separate  stages  ;  ^ 
for  deiu-edations  of  her  cattle;^*  for  injuries  resulting 


g   425  TORTS   OF  MARRIED   WOMEX.  620 

from  the  mismanagement  of  her  separate  property  ;S5 
for  her  negligence  connected  with  it ;  *«  for  maintaining 
a  nuisance  on  it,^^  and,  it  is  said,  for  refusing  to  give  iip 
the  property  of  another  and  holding  it  under  a  claim 
that  it  was  her  separate  property  ;^  but  not  for  receiv- 
ing stolen  goods,  for  no  title  to  them  vested  In  her,  and 
they  could  not  be  her  separate  property .=** 

1  Kowing  r.  Manlj-,  40  X.  Y.  192,  201  ;  10  Am.  Rep.  346  ;  post,  ? 

2  Catterall  v.  Kenvon,  3  Ad.  A  E.  N.  S.  .•?10  ;  2  Gale  &  T).  545 ; 
Ball  r.  Bennett,  21  Ind.  427,  428;  Burt  v.  McBaiii,  29  IMieli.  2ro,  2ii2  ; 
McKeovrn  v.  Johnson,  1  McCord,  578,  579  ;  10  Am.  Dec.  6US  ;  ante,  J  06. 

3  Boadcap  t'.  Sipe,6  Gratt.  213,  217 ;  ante,  ?  66. 

4  Hawk  V.  Harman,  5  Binn.  43,  44  ;  ante,  ?  66. 

5  Marshall  v.  Oakes,  5i  :Me.  30?,  309  ;  ante,  ?  OS. 

6  Kowing  V.  Manly,  49  X.  Y.  192,  201  ;  10  Am.  Rep.  34G ;  ante,  i  OG. 

7  Carter  v.  Jackson,  58  >'.  H.  365,  363  ;  ante,  i  06. 

8  Discussed  fully,  ante,  ?  OC 

9  Carter  v.  Jackson,  50  X.  H.  366, 368. 

10  Roadeap  v.  Sipe,  6  Gratt.  213,  217  But  see  2  Bish.  M.  W.  ?  260  ; 
cases  cited  ante,  \  423,  n.  9. 

11  Estill  r.  Fort,  2  Dana,  237,  238  ;  cases  ante,  ?  423,  n.  8.  Except 
uader  separate  property  act :  liagebrush  v.  Ragland,  78  III.  40. 

12  JIcKcown  V.  Johnson,  1  McCord,  578,  579  ;  10  Am.  Dec.  608. 

13  Smith  r.  Taylor,  11  Ga.  20,  22-24  ;  post,  ?  452. 

14  Green  r.  Branton,  1  Dev.  Eq.  500,  501  ;  post,  ?  400. 

15  Lansing  r.  Holdridgo,  5S  How.  Pr.  449,  451 ;  post,  \  4f50. 

16  Ball  !•.  Bennett,  21  Ind.  427, 42S.  See  Austin  t-.  Wilson,  4  Cush. 
273,  275  ;  ZeliDf  v.  Jennings,  61  Tex.  4.38,  471. 

17  Dailv  r.  Houston,  5S  Mo.  361,  367,  36S ;  Reugler  v.  Lilly,  26 
Ohio  .St.  4!>,  49  ;  Roadcap  r.  Sipe,  6  Gratt.  213,  218. 

18  The  broader  language  of  the  cases  seems  unjustifiable. 

19  Hall  r.  White,  27  Conn.  488,  494  ;  Smith  r.  Taylor,  11  Ga.  20,  22  ; 
Baker  i:  Young,  44  111.  42,  48;  Tait  r.  Culbertson,  51  Barb.  9,  11; 
Corn  V.  Brazelton,  2  Swan,  273,  275  ;  Zeliflf  v.  Jennings,  61  Tex.  458,  471. 

20  Howard  v.  North,  5  Tex.  290,  299 ;  51  Am.  Dec.  769 

21  Sec  cases  ante,  {  66. 

22  Smith  v.  Taylor,  11  Ga.  20,  22;  Chauvlcr  v.  Fliege,  6  La.  An. 
.56,  58  ;  Brown  7-.  Kemper.  27  Md.  606,673.  But  see  Vanderheyden  v, 
Mallon,  1  Comst.  452,  462. 

21  Green  v.  Branton,  1  Dev.  Eq.  500, 504. 

24  Brown  v.  Kemper,  27  Md.  666,  673. 

25  Zelitr  I'.  Jennings,  ni  Tex.  458,  471, 

26  Burt  I'.  McBain,  29  Mich.  260,  262 ;  Md.  Acts  of  18.S0,  ch.  253,  |  CI. 

27  Kowing  v.  Manly,  49  X.  Y.  192,  201 ;  10  Am.  Rep.  343  ;  Stewart 
M.  &  D.  11  448,  449. 


621  TORTS  OF  MARRIED  AVOMEX.  \   425 

28  2  Addis.  Torts,  1125 ;  Wright  v.  Leonard,  11  Com.  B.  X.  S.  2ri.S,2fi.S  ; 
Kowing  V.  Manly,  ii  N.  Y.  rj2,  2ul  ;  10  Am.  Hep.  iH(J. 

23  See  Lansing  r.  Iloldrldgo,  5S  IIow.  Pr.  419,  ATA. 

30  Rowe  V   Smith,  15  X.  Y.  2:;o,  233.    See  Ferguson  v.  IJrooks,  fi7 
Me.  251,20.1. 

31  Lansing  v.  Holdrldge,  TA  How.  Fr.  410,  lot. 

32  Baum  v.  Mullen,  47  N.  Y.  577,  573. 

33  Gillies  v.  Lent,  2  Abb.  X.  S.  45.5  ;  Peak  v.  Lemon,  1  Lans.  295,  299. 
U  Rowe  V.  Smith,  45  N.  Y.  230,  233  ;  55  Barb.  417 ;  33  How.  Pr.  37. 

a5  Eagle  i'.  Swayze,  2  Daly,  140, 112. 

36  Fiske  v.  Bailey,  51  X.  Y.  150, 153. 

37  Rowe  i'.  Smith,  cited  supra,  n.  34. 

38  Peak  v.  Lemon,  1  Lans.  295,  2!t9,  301. 

33  Musser  v.  Lewis,  50  IS'.  Y,  Super.  431, 44a 


g  426-427       CRIMES  OF  makried  women.  622 

CHAPTER  XXV. 

CRIMES   OF    MARRIED   WOMEX. 

4-6.    Married  women's  liability  for  crime. 
?  427.    Proof  of  married  women's  guilt. 

\  426.  Liability  of  married  women  for  crime.  —  A  mar- 
ried woman  continues  liable  for  any  crime  committed 
before  her  marriage,^  and  during  coverture  may  ren- 
der herself  liable  to  prosecution  for  any  crime  as  if 
unmarried,'-  with  the  following  exceptions :  (1)  She  can- 
not be  guilty  of  conspiracy  Avith  her  husband  ;  ^  (2)  or 
of  larceny  for  appropriating  his  goods.*  (3)  She  can- 
not be  prosecuted  for  receiving  goods  her  husband  has 
stolen;^  (-1)  or  for  aiding  him  to  escape  detection  in  a 
crime  he  has  committed.*  This  subject  is  fully  treated 
in  Desty's  ''American  Criminal  Law."' 

1  This  has  never  beea  questioned.    Compare  ante,  \  422. 

2  See  cases  cited  ante,  \\  43,  63  ;  Desty  Crim.  Law,  \\  15 «,  Ifin,  17a  ; 
1  Russell  Crimes,  '-^'A. 

:i  People  c.  Mather,  4  Wend.  220 ;  21  Am.  Dec.  122 ;  Desty  Crim. 
Law,  (  17  a. 

4  Com.  V.  Hartnett,  3  Gray,  4.50 ;  ante,  ?}  47, 49. 

5  Reg.  r.  Brooks,  Dears.  C.  C.  184  ;  Desty  Crim.  Law,  J  17a. 

6  Reg.  !•.  Goode,  1  Car.  &  K.  135;  Desty  Crim.  Law,  J  17a, 

7  Dtsty  Crim.  Law,  W  15a-17a. 

\  427.  Proof  of  gxiilt  of  married  women.  —  To  con\-ict  a 
married  woman  for  an  act  which  would  be  criminal 
were  she  unmarried  when  it  was  committed,  it  must 
afiirmatively  appear  :  (1)  That  her  husband  was  absent 
at  the  tinie,^  for,  from  his  presence  his  coercion  is  im- 
plied ;  2  (2)  or  that  being  present  he  did  not  or  could 
not  coerce  her;^  (3)  or  that  it  is  a  crime  'malum  in  se 
(murder,  robbery,  treason,  etc.* ) ;  or  peculiarly  fem- 
inine^ (as  keeping  a  bawdy  house*) ;  or  specially  cov- 
ered by  a  statute  expressly  referring  to  married  woman.' 


i 


623  CRIMES   OF   JIAIiniED   WOMEN',  g  427 

1  Rex  V.  Morris,  Russ.  <fe  R.  270  ;  Desty  Crim.  Law,  ?  16  «. 

2  ^n/e,  U  417,  424  ;  Desty  Crim.  Law,  ?  18 a. 

3  Nolan  v.  Traber,  49  Md.  46y  ;  33  Am.  Rep.  277. 

4  Com.  V.  Xeal,  10  Mass.  152  ;  6  Am.  Dec.  105;  Desty  Crim.  Law 
?  16  a. 

5  Pennybaker  v.  State,  2  Blackf.  4»4. 

6  Com.  V.  Cheney,  114  Mass.  281 ;  Desty  Crim.  Law,  J  16  a. 

7  See  Md.  Rev.  Code  1878,  art.  12,  l  42. 


§  428-429        SUITS  of  married  women.  624 

CHAPTER  XXVI. 

SUITS  OF  marrif;d  women. 

Art.  I.    In  General,  §?  428-437. 

II.    Suits  by  Married  Women,  §§  438-447. 

III.  Suits  Against  Married  Women,  H  448-459. 

IV,  Management  of  Married  Women's  Suits, 

\l  460-463. 

Art  I.  —  Suits  of  Married  Women,  in  General,. 

?  428.  Preliminary  note. 

I  4-0.  Rights  anrt  remedies  distinguished. 

I  430.  Effect  of  marriage  on  pending  suits. 

\  431.  Suits  of  married  women  at  common  law. 

I  432.  Suits  of  married  women  in  equity  and  by  statute. 

i  433.  Suits  between  husband  and  wife. 

\  434.  Effect  of  dissolution  of  marriage  on  pending  suits. 

J  4.3.5.  Law  of  forum  governs  remedies. 

J  436.  Law  of  time  of  suit  brought  governs  remedies. 

?  437.  Costs. 

I  428.  Preliminary  note. — The  topic  of  parties  to  mar- 
ried women's  suits  is  treated  in  "  Hawes  on  Parties  ' ; 
the  practice  in  tliese  suits  is  in  no  two  States  tlie  same, 
and  the  subject  is  a  very  broad  one,  so  that  a  minute 
discussion  thereof  is  not  attempted. 

§429.  Bights  and  remedies  distinguished,  etc. —  ZTM 
JUS,  ibi  remedmm  is  a  familiar  maxim,'  but  the  right 
and  the  remedy  are  quite  distinct.  Thus,  while  tlie 
right  depends,  generally  speaking,  on  the  law  of  the 
place  where''  and  the  time  when^  it  arose,  the  remedy 
depends  on  the  law  of  the  place  where, ^  and  the  time 
when''  llie  suit  is  brought;  and  a  statute  enabling  a 
married  woman  to  sue  alone  gives  her  no  new  rights, 
but  simply  changes  the  form  of   procedure.^    While 


625  SUITS   OF   MARRIED   WOMEN.  g    429 

this  is  true,  nevertheless  suits  of  married  women  can- 
not be  understood  without  a  comprehension  of  and 
reference  to  the  respective  rights  of  husband  and  wife 
in  her  proi^erty,  of  their  respective  riglats  in  lier  choses 
in  action,  in  contract,  and  in  tort,  and  of  their  respective 
liabilities  for  contracts  made  and  wrongs  committed  by 
her.  Thus,  a  husband  may  sue  alone  for  his  wife's 
chattels,'  or  for  the  rents  of  her  lands,^  for  such  prop- 
erty is  absolutely  his  at  common  law  ;  ^  so  he  may  join 
her  in  his  sviits  on  her  choses  in  action.^"  for  in  these 
she  has  the  right  of  survivorship  at  common  law."  He 
may  sue  alone  respecting  the  community,''^  since  he 
has  during  coverture  the  fall  management  tliereof.^^ 
On  the  other  hand,  she  cannot  be  a  party  to  a  suit  for 
an  injury  to  him,"  since  she  has  (independently  of 
statute)  no  right  to  damages  for  loss  of  his  services, 
etc.'^  Nor  is  she  suable  after  his  deatli  for  necessaries 
supplied  to  her  during  coverture, ^^  for  such  a  debt  is 
his  and  not  hers."  Tlie  remedy  is  always  subservient 
to  the  right,  and  if  a  wife  gets  a  judgment  against  her 
husband  in  ejectment,  it  must  be  so  framed  as  not  to 
interfere  with  his  marital  right  to  cohabit  with  her.'^ 
Rights  and  obligations  not  dependent  on  the  marriage 
state  may  also  modify  the  remedies  of  and  against 
married  women :  lier  husband  may  join  Avith  her  as 
plaintiff  wlienever  he  is  actually  injured  or  interested  ;  '^ 
and  may  be  joined  with  her  as  defendant  whenever  he 
has  rights  to  be  affected,  or  whicli  might  be  affected  by 
the  suit ;  ^^  or  has  been  a  party  to  the  wrong  conijilained 
of, ''I  as  where  he  and  his  wife  have  jointly  ejected  the 
complainant.^^ 

1  Tunks  V.  Grover,  57  Me.  5.SR,  588. 

2  Oliver  v.  Robertson,  ■)!  Tex.  422,  425  :  ante,  ??  24-.T7. 

3  Grove  v.  Todd,  tl  Md.  G;J3,  Ml  ;  20  Am.  Rep.  7fi  ;  ante,  ??  l!>-23.     . 

4  Bank  v.  Williams,  46  Miss,  618,  629  ;  12  Am.  Rep.  319  ,  2Mst,  \  435  ; 
ante,  a  20.  21. 

H.  &  \V.  -  B3. 


2   430  SUITS   OF   MARRIED    WOMEX.  626 

5    Shonk  r.  Brown,  CI  Px  St.  320,  327 ;  post,  ?  436  ;  ante,  \  35. 
C    itatson,  4  Met.  ^Ky.)  2Gi 

7  Goddard  v.  Johnson,  14  Pick.  a52  ;  ante,  f  170  ;  Hawes  Parties, 
II  &3,  W. 

8  Boggs  v.  Price,  64  Ala.  519;    ante,  U  141-l4o;   Hawes  Parties, 

9  Discussed  ante,  i'l  141-IS3. 

10  Grimth  r.  Coleman,  5  Marsh.  J.  J.  600  ;  Hawes  Parties,  U  64,  65, 

11  Discussed  ante,  U  76,  171-17G. 

12  Edrington  v.  ^ewland,  57  Tex.  627. 

13  Discussed  ante,  I  315. 

14  Monroe  v.  Maples,  1  Root,  422. 

15  Ante,  ii  77-80. 

16  Carter  i-.  Wann,  45  Ala.  343.    Consult  ante,  \\  357,  366,  383. 

17  Ante,  ?  81. 

IS    Manning,  79  N.  C.  233  ;  23  Am.  Rep.  324. 

If)  McMuIlen  r.  Van  TIant,  73  III.  WO.  193  :  Forbes  r.  Tuckerman,  V.h 
Mass.  115,  lis  ;  Hopkins  i:  Angell,  13  R.  I.  670. 

20  Indianapolis  r.  McLaughlin,  77  111.275;  Hawes  Parties,  5}  6S-70. 

21  Ante,  U  66,  423  ;  Hawes  Parties,  |  70. 

22  Tllton  t'.  Barrel!,  8  Sawy.  412 ;  14  Fed.  Rep.  603 ;  Smith,  58  X.  H. 
339. 

§  430.  Effect  of  marriage  on  pending  suits.  —  The  mar- 
riage of  a  Avomaii  does  not,  at  common  law,  destroy  her 
liability  on  her  antenuptial  contracts,  or  for  her  ante- 
nuptial torts,  but  simpl}-  renders  her  husband  jointly 
liable  with  her ;  ^  nor  does  she  by  niaiTiage  entirely 
lose  her  rights  of  action,  for,  though  her  husband  may 
reduce  them  to  possession,  if  not  so  reduced  during 
coverture  they  survive  to  her ;  *  so  that  if  a  suit  is 
pending  at  the  time  of  marriage,  after  marriage  the 
husband  has  interests  to  be  aftected,  and  the  opposing 
party  stands  in  a  new  position,  and  the  suit  abates.' 
But  at  present  the  effect  of  marriage  on  pending  suits 
is  almost  entirely  controlled  by  local  statutes.  In  Ala- 
brma,  for  instance,  the  suit  does  not  abate,  but  the 
marriage  is  suggested,  and  the  husband  is  joined;* 
while  in  Tennessee  the  suit  abates,  may  be  revived 
against  her  husband,  and  in  case  of  his  death  sur\-ives 


627  SUITS   OF    MARRIED    WOMKXf.  ?    431 

against  her.'  It  is  said  a  defendant  may  plead  in 
abatement,  or  by  sci7-e  facias  have  the  husband  made 
a  partj';*  and  if  ho  omits  to  do  tliis,  cannot  allege 
coverture  after  judgment ;  or,  if  the  woman  is  a  de- 
fendant, and  no  i>lea  is  entered,  the  suit  may  proceed 
to  execution  without  noticing  the  marriage,^  and  she 
may  be  taken  in  execution  as  if  sole.'  Generally  speak- 
ing, if  the  husband  is  a  necessary  jiarty  to  a  suit 
brought  during  coverture,  he  should  be  joined  upon 
his  marriage  in  all  his  wife's  antenuptial  suits.'* 

1  Discussed  an^e,  ?  J  08,  f.7. 

2  Uiscusseil  ante,  U  170-J7!>. 

3  See  cixses  cited  In/ra, 

4  LamUIii  i-.  Dudley,  Si  Ala.  ll«,  ir,. 

5  Parker  )•.  Steed,  1  I.ea,  COS. 

6  James  v.  Tait,  8  Tort,  4TG  ;  Townshend,  10  Gill  *  J.  S73 ;  Bates  v. 
Stevens,  4  Vu  545. 

7  Bates  v.  Stevens,  4  Vt  545  ;  post,  I  444. 

8  Evaus  r.  Lipscomb,  "23  Ga.  71 ;  Sacket  v.  Wilson,  2  Blackf.  S.i. 

9  Haines  v.  Corliss,  4  Mass.  650. 

10    Glbso'.i.  V,  Wis.  2^,  24,  2S  ;  28  Am.  Rep.  527. 

g  431.  Suits  of  married  women  at  common  law. — At 
common  law,  speaking  generally,  and  for  reasons 
suited  in  sections  42l>  and  430,  a  married  woman  could 
neither  sue  nor  be  sued  luiless  her  husband  was  joined 
with  her;i  and  this  is  still  prima  facie  the  rule,  and 
the  causes  which  enable  her  to  sue  or  render  her  liable 
to  be  sued  at  all  must  be  alleged  and  jn-oved.-  At 
common  law  the  suit  was  treated  as  tlie  suit  of  the 
husband,''  and  he  could,  as  defendant,  allow  judgment 
to  be  entered,*  or  as  jilaintilV,  release  the  cause  of  action.^ 
Ho  employed  the  counsel,^  and  was  liable  for  the  costs." 

1  Porter  r.  Bank,  10  Vt.  410,  417.  See  Kimbro  r.  First,  1  Mc.Vt.  6.i  ; 
Cowand  r.  XMilU'v, ;)  t.a.  Aw.  12,  i:f ;  Tucker  r.  Scot,  .'t  X.  J.  L.  aVi  ;  How- 
land  V.  Fort,  S  llow.  Pr.  TiOo  ;  ilclntire  v.  (.'liappeU,  2  Tex.  378,  37!t.  . 

2  Smith  f.  New  EnRland.  4"i  Conn.  4ir.,  420.  See  Purden  v. 
McWillianis.Sl  Ala.4;t< ;  Lewis  f.  Moure. 2,i  Ark. fv! ;  Hyatt  i'.  Cochran, 
S."i  Ind.  2-1;  Cowand  c.  Pulley,  il  I.a.  .\n.  12.  i:! ;  Itidgelv  f.  Crandall, 
4  Md.  435 ;  Gregory   r.  I'ac.l,  15  Mass.  31 ;  Tracy  v.  Keith,  U  Allen, 


g   43a  SUITS   OF   MARRIED   WOMEN.  G28 

2U,  215;  Kennedy  v.  'Winiams.  11  Minn.  318,  319;  Pickering  v. 
iJe  Rochemont,  45  N.  H.  87  ;  Button  ?•.  Rice,  53  X.  H.  4:tfi,  4n9  ; 
INIcIntire  v.  Chappell,  2  Tex.  378,  379 ;  WUliams  v.  Brainard,  52  Vt.  392  ; 
Botkiii  c.  Karl,  «  Wis.  393, 39{i. 

3  Benjamin  v.  Bartlett,  3  Mo.  86,  87 ;  post,  ?  460. 

4  Vick  V.  Pope,  81  N.  C.  22,  26  ;  post,  ?  4G0. 

5  Sonthworth  v.  Packard,  7  Mass.  95, 9G  ;  post,  I  460. 

6  I'razier  r.  Felton,  1  Hawks,  231,  237;  pos<,  ?§  460, 462. 

7  Discussed  post,  i  437. 

I  432.  Suits  of  married  women  in  equity  and  under 
statutes.  —  In  equity,  independently  of  .statute,  suit.s  of 
married  women,  except  those  for  enforcing  her  equity 
to  a  settlement  and  those  concerning  her  equitable 
separate  estate,  are  governed  by  the  same  rules  which 
control  suits  at  law.i  Still,  in  equity,  neither  the 
husband's  bill  nor  his  answer  is  binding  upon  her.^ 
When  applying  for  her  settlement  out  of  her  choses 
in  action,  .she  sues  by  her  next  friend,  generally  making 
her  husband  one  of  the  defendants.^  As  to  her  equi- 
table separate  estate,  she  sues  by  her  next  friend  and 
jointly  with  her  tru.stee,  if  she  has  one,  making  her 
liusband  a  defendant  if  his  interests  in  any  way  con- 
flict ;  *  and  when  she  is  sued,  her  trustee  (if  slie  has 
any)  should  be  joined,'  and  she  may  eome  in  and  give 
a  separate  answer  by  next  friend.*  In  the  different 
States,  statutes  have  so  differently  changed  the  pro- 
cedure in  suits  of  married  women  that  no  general 
statement  can  be  given  ;  the  statutes  of  the  State  where 
the  particular  suit  is  brought,  or  is  about  to  be  brought, 
must  in  each  case  be  consulted.' 

1  Porter  v.  Bank,  19  Vt.  410,  417  ;   onte,  U  210, 211,  431. 

2  Beln  ji.  Heath,  6  How.  228,  239;  Grant  r.  Van  Schoonhoven, 
9  Paige,  2.55,  2.57  ;  37  Am.  Dec.  393  ;  Bird  v.  Davis,  14  N.  J.  Eq.  467, 479  ; 
post,  a  460,  461. 

3  Bradley  v.  Emerson,  7  Vt.  369,  371 ;  ante,  ?  192  ;  jiost,  i  43-3. 

4  Johnson  v.  Vail,  14  X.  J.  Eq.  423  ;  ante,  \  210  ;  post,  'A  4;«,  440. 

5  Palmer  v.  Rankins,  30  .\rk.  771  ;  ante,  ?  211  ;  post,  I  450. 
f>    Wolf  V.  Banning,  3  Minn.  202  ;  post,  i  461. 

7    Powersf.  Totten,42X.  J.  L.  442,  443  ;73o««,  H35. 


629  SUITS   OF   MARRIED   WOMEN.  g    433 

I  433.  Suits  between  husband  and  wife.  —  Suits  between 
husband  and  wife  liave  already  been  somewhat  fully 
discussed.!  At  common  law  one  spouse  could  not  sue 
the  other,^  both  because  the  wife  could  not  sue  or  be 
sued  without  her  husband,^  and  because  husband  and 
wife  were  one  jjerson.*  But  in  equity,  where  tlie  sepa- 
rate existence  and  jiroperty  of  wives  Avere  recognized, 
they  could  sue  each  other, ^  only  the  wife  had  to  sue  by 
next  friend.^  And  after  dissolution  of  the  marriage  by 
divorce,  eitlier  could  sue  the  other  at  law;^  and  such 
suits  could  be  maintained  between  the  representatives 
of  the  deceased  and  the  survivor,  where  the  marriage 
was  dissolved  by  death.*  When  the  husband  files  a 
bill  for  a  purpose  which  would  affect  the  interests  of 
his  wife,  she  must  be  made  a  party  defendant ;  ^  and 
so  she  must  make  him  a  party  defendant  when  she 
tiles  a  bill  for  the  protection  of  her  property  from  him 
or  his  creditors.'"  If  she  can  sue  without  her  husband, 
she  can  make  him  the  garnishee  or  trustee  of  a  third 
party."  When  she  can  alone  sue  him,  she  can  alone 
sue  others  with  him,''^  or  sue  a  firm  of  which  he  is  a 
member. '3  In  many  States  statutes  expressly  author- 
ize married  women  to  sue  and  be  sued  by  their  hus- 
bands.'* Whether  a  statute,  authorizing  a  married 
woman  to  sue  and  be  sued  alone  as  if  sole,  authorizes 
suits  between  husband  and  wife  is  disputed.'^ 

1  Ante,  II  52-56. 

2  Hobbs,  70Me.  381,  383.  S.  P.,  Peters,  42  Iowa.  182;  Withers  r. 
Shropshire,  15  Mo.  631 ;  Ward,  2  Dev.  Eq.  553  ;  Kitter,  31  Pa.  St.  396  ; 
Marvin,  10  Pliila.  524  ;  ante,  i  52. 

3  Mclntire  v.  Chappell,  2  Tex.  378,  379  ;  post,  U  ■»!,  -fol. 

4  Porter  v.  Banlv,  19  Vt.  410,  417  ;  ante,  U  39,  52. 

5  Markham,4  Midi.  305,  307;  Beiper,  !'J  Mo.  352,  3.59  ;  Walter,  48 
Mo.  140,  145  ;  ante,  i  .53. 

6  Leftwiclv  )'.  Hamilton,  9  Heisli.  310,  313  ;  Porter  v.  Bank,  19  Vt. 
410,  417  ;  2)<Mt,  i  442. 

7  Webster.  .58  Me.  1-38,  145 ;  4  Am.  Rep.  ?."3  ;  Carleton,  72  Me.  11.5; 
39  Am.  Rep.  307  ;  Blake,  64  Me.  177,  IfO  ;  ante,  i  55. 


g   434  SUITS   OF   MARRIED   WOMEN.  630 

8  Willis  V  Jones,  57  Md.  \i(\2  ;  Hill.  38  Md.  18^  ;  Barto:;,  S2  Md.  214  ; 
ante,  i  55. 

9  Grant  v.  Van  Schoonhoveii,  0  Paige,  25S,  257  ;  Alston  v.  Jones,  3 
Barb.  Ch.  397,  410  ;  Hale  v.  Gause  3  lied.  Eq.  UU :  ante,  U  136,  280. 

10  Eddins  v.  Buck,  23  Ark.  507;  Kirkpatrick  r.  Buford.  21  Ark. 
268  ;  Lewis  v.  Elrod,  .S8  Ala.  17  ;  Boyd  v.  England,  56  (ia.  5!W  ;  John- 
son V.  Vail,  H  N.  J.  Eq.  423  ;  C'antrell  v.  Davidson,  3  Tenn.  Ch.  426  , 
Marston  v.  Ward,  35  Te.v.  71)7  ;  Bradley  v.  Emerson,  7  Vt.  36D,  371. 

11  Tunks  v.  Grover,  57  Me.  586,  588. 

12  Kashaw,  3  Cal.  321. 

13  Benson?).  Morgan,  50  Mich.  77;  Devin,  17  How.  Pr.  ."14;  Ben- 
nett V.  Winfield,  4  Heisk.  440.  Compare  Edwards  r.  Stevens,  3 
Allen,  315. 

14  Larison.  0  111.  App.  27  ;  Wilkins  v.  Miller,  0  Jnd..l0n,  101  ;  Jones. 
19  Iowa,  330;  Greer,  24  Kan.  101  ;  Hardin  v.  Gerard,  11  Bush,  2.M) ; 
Power  )).  Lester,  23  N.  Y.  527  ;  Manning,  79  !N.  C.  233  ;  2s  Am.  Rep 
324  ;  ante  ?  54. 

15  See  Smith  r\  Gorman, 41  Me.  405  ;  Crowther,55Me.  3.'iS  ;  Scliuitz, 
89  N.  Y.  644  ;  Ryan,  61  Tex.  473,  474  ;  ante,  i  64. 

§  434.  Effect  of  dissolution  of  marriage  on  pending 
suits. — At  coniinon  law,  on  the  dissolution  of  marriage, 
the  joint  suit  of  husband  and  wife  in  her  right  abated  ; 
at  present,  general!}',  the  suit  wUl  either  abate  and  have 
to  be  revived  by  her  or  her  representatives,  or  may  be 
amended  and  continued  by  her  or  her  representatives  ; ' 
if  the  joinder  of  the  husband  is  merely  foi-mal  there  is 
usually  no  abatement.^  Thus,  in  case  of  her  husband's 
death  she  has  her  right  of  action  on  her  choses  in  action 
as  .survivor;*  and  if  she  dies,  he,  at  common  law, 
prosecutes  the  suit  as  survivor  or  as  administrator.* 
Divorce  has  much  the  same  effect  as  the  husband's 
death." 

1  Patter  v.  Harrington,  11  Pick.  221,  222.  See  Tallmadge  v. 
Grannis,  20  Conn.  296,  297  ;  Tuttle  v.  Fowler,  22  Conn.  5S,  C.; ;  Buck  v. 
Goodrich.  33  Conn.  37,  41;  Wass  v.  Pliniimcr.  68  Me.  2()7,  26S  ;  IS'or- 
cross  V.  Stewart,  .50  Me.  88  ;  Pettingill  r.  Butterfield,  4.i  N.  H.  195  ; 
Little  V.  Downing,  ;17  N.  H.  3.55,  3()4  ;  Wood  v.  Griffin,  4fi  X.  H.  230,  237  ; 
Armstrong  r.  Colby,  47  Vt.  3(!4,  MS  ;  Meese  v.  Fond,  48  Wis.  ;;23. 

2  Calderwood  v.  Pyser,  31  Cal.  333. 

3  Storv  V.  Baird,  14  N.  J.  L.  262,  268  ;  King  r.  Little,  77  N.  C.  138- 
1.39  ;  Little  )■.  Keves.24  Vt.  118, 121;  ante,  §  176  ;  Stewart  M.  &  i).  i  4(i0  ; 
Hawes  Parties,  j  6.3. 

4  Patter  r.  Harrington,  11  Pick.  221,  222;  ante,  ?  17';;  Stewart 
M.  &.  D.  ?  465. 

5  Tuttle  V.  Fowler.  22  Conn.  58,  63  ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  I  430. 


631  SUITS   OF   MAERIBD   WOMEN.  g?   430-4S6 

f  435.  Eemedies  depend  on  the  lex  fori. — By  Avhatever 
law  rights  are  to  be  governed,  the  nature  and  form  of 
the  remedy  is  to  be  determined  by  the  law  of  the  State 
where  the  suit  is  brought.'  Thus,  tiiough  where  a 
married  Avoman'.s  contract  is  made  it  is  enforcible  at 
law,  if  the  law  of  the  forum  requires  married  v.omen's 
contract  to  bo  enforced  in  equity,  the  remedy  must  be 
in  equity ;  '■  and  so,  if  the  law  of  the  forum  requires  the 
husband  to  be  joined,  slie  cannot  sue  or  be  sued  alone.' 
And  though  where  the  contract  was  made  she  woiild 
have  had  to  sue  by  next  friend,  she  can  sue  alone  if 
the  law  of  the  forum  allows  it.'*  If  tlio  right  exists, 
the  forum  must  allow  it  to  be  enforced,^  though  it  is  a 
right  which  could  not  have  arisen  in  that  State.*  Rights 
in  rem  as  well  as  remedies  are  governed  by  the  law  of 
the  forum.^ 

1  Kin?  V.  jrartin,  (17  Ala.  177,  isn  ;  Powers  r.  Totten,42  N.  J.  U 
442, 44:{ ;  Hayrtfii  v.  Stone,  i:i  R.  I.  100,  111 ;  cases  ante,  i  35. 

2  Halley  v.  Ba'.l,  66  III.  251,  252. 

3  Hayden  r.  Stone,  13  R.  I.  106,  111. 

4  Stoneman  ;•.  Erie,  52  N.  Y.  429,  4^. 

5  See  Tunlvs  v.  Grover,  57  Me.  586,  5SS. 

6  Brighanx  v.  Gilmartin,  58  N.  H.  346. 

7  Hayden  v.  Stone,  13  R.  I.  106, 110. 

§  436.  The  law  of  time  of  suit  brought  governs  remedies. 
—  The  constitutional  prohibitions  against  divesting 
vested  rights,  etc.,'  do  not  prevent  a  cliange  of  reme- 
dies so  long  as  a  substantial  remedy  is  given  or  left  ;^ 
so  that  an  act  enabling  a  married  Avoman  to  sue  and 
be  sued  alone  may  ajjply  to  existing  as  well  as  to  future 
rights  of  action  ;  3  or  a  remedy  on  an  existing  contract 
may  Ije  clianged  from  equity  to  law,*  and  even  the  hus- 
band's right  to  sue  jointly  Avith  his  wife,  for  personal 
injuries  to  her,  may  be  taken  away.*  If  no  Aaluable 
rights  are  disturbed,  for  the  sake  of  simijlicity,  statutes 
changing  the  form  of  remedies  are  applied  to  existing 


g   437  SUITS   OF   MAKKIED   WOMEX.  632 

as  well  as  to  future  causes  of  action;*  but  a  contrary 
construction  is  given  if  valuable  though  not  vested 
rights  would  thereby  be  disturbed.'  As  to  vested 
rights,  such  as  the  husband's  right  as  tenant  during 
coverture  ./wj-e  uxoris^  to  sue  for  trespass  to  the  prop- 
erty j*"  they  cannot  be  disturbed,  of  course.'" 

1  Discussed  ante,  U  '9-23. 

2  Deering  v.  Boyle,  8  Kan.  52.5-5.^3  ;  12  Am.  Eep.  480. 

3  Maysville  v.  Herrick,  13  Bush,  122,  125. 

4  Buckingham  v.  Moss,  40  Conn.  461,  463  ;  Herbert  r.  Gray,  38  Mil. 
529.  532. 

5  Ball  V.  BuUard,  .'^2  Barb.  141,  143, 144. 

n  Buckingham  v.  Moss,  40  Conn.  461,  463;  Mavsville  i'.  Herrick, 
13  Bush   122, 125 ;  ante,  i  20. 

7  Kiuibro  v.  First,  1  McAr.  61,  71  ;  Greenleaf  r.  Hill,  31  Me.  562. 
564 ;  H,'rb<.'rt  v.  Gray,  38  Md.  529,  532  ;  Dugan  v.  Morrow,  31  N.  J.  1., 
136,  13H  :  Powers  r.  Totten,  42  N.  J.  L.  442, 443  ;  ante,  §  20. 

8  Discussed  ante,  ??  146-150. 

9  Bannister  v.  Bull,  16  .S.  C.  220,  230  ;  ante,  U  21,  22. 
10    Discussed  ante,  \\  19-23. 

\  437.  Costs  in  suits  of  married  women.  —  1.  Married 
women  plaintiff's.  At  common  law,  a  married  woman 
suing  as  plaintiff  (except  in  cases  in  which  she  could  sue 
alone ' )  was  an  inactive  party,  the  control  of  the  suit 
being  in  her  husband,^  and  was  not  liable  for  costs  ;3 
nor  could  costs  incurred  in  a  suit  at  law  be  charged  on 
her  equitable  separate  estate  in  equity.*  Owing  to  this 
iininunity  of  a  married  woman  from  costs,  she  could 
not  sue  alone  in  equity  even,  but  had  to  proceed  by 
next  friend,  that  some  one  might  be  responsible  in 
case  of  loss  of  the  suit;^  and  some  modern  enabling 
acts  have  required  the  next  friend  to  be  joined,  pre- 
sumably for  the  .same  reason.*  But  if  the  married 
woman  has  separate  property,  and  the  right  to  sue 
with  respect  thereto,  it  must  bear  the  costs  of  an  un- 
successful suit  relating  to  it.^  If  she  can  sue  alone, 
her  privilege  is  accompanied  with  the  usual  burdens, 
and  she  is  liable  for  costs.^ 


633  SUITS   BY   MARRIED   WOMEN.  ?   438 

2.  Marrieil  tvomen  defendants.  If  a  judgment  can  be 
obtained  against  a  married  Avoman  ■which  will  be  bind- 
ing on  her  property,  the  judgment  is  equally  binding, 
though  it  includes  costs.*  But  when  lier  husband  is  or 
should  be  joined  Avith  her,  a  decree  for  costs  against 
her  alone  cannot  be  passed.^" 

1  Leonard  ;•.  Townseiid,  26  Cal.  435 ;  pott,  ?  441. 

2  Frazier  v.  Felton,  1  Hawks,  231,  237  ;  post,  I  460. 

3  Klmbro  r.  First.  1  McAr.  61,  65,  66  ;  Harppr  v.  Whitehead,  X>,  Ga. 
13S,  144  ;  Browner  v.  Bell,  30  fia.  3.34,  3H6  ;  :Musjrrove,  'A  111.  isii.  1S7,  1S8; 
Hubbard  v.  Barous,  .38  Md.  166,  174  ;  Bellinger  r.  Tlioiuson,  2  HieU.  Eq. 
30  ;  Baker,  1  Bail.  Eq.  16.5     Consult  j)OSt,  i  463. 

4  Klmbro  v.  First,  1  McAr.  61,  66. 

.5  Harper  v.  Whitehead,  33  Ga.  138,  144  ;  Baker,  1  Ball.  Eq.  165 ; 
post,  'i  440. 

6  Frazier  v.  White,  49  Md.  1,  8  ;  Md.  R.  C.  1878,  art.  51,  ?  22. 

7  Musgrove,  &1  111.  186,  188. 

8  Leonard  v.  Townsend,  26  Cal.  435 ;  Moncrief  v.  Ward,  16  Abb,  Pr. 
.%4  a  ;  post,  a  462,  463. 

9  ^Qe  post,  i  457. 

10    Hubbard  v.  Barcus,  38  Md.  166,  174. 

Article  II.  —  Suits  by  Married  ^yoMEN. 

§  438.  Modes  In  which  married  women  may  sue, 

i  430.  Suits  jointly  with  husband. 

g  440.  Suits  by  trustee  or  next  friend. 

2  441.  Suits  by  married  women  alone. 

I  442.  The  causes  of  action. 

g  443.  The  defen.ses. 

i  444.  Plea  of  coverture  against  married  women. 

J  44.5.  Plea  of  limitations  against  married  women. 

?  446.  Special  proceedings  of  married  women. 

i  447.  The  ownership  of  the  proceeds  of  suit. 

^  438,  Uodes  in  which  married  women's  suits  may  be 
brought.  —  Under  different  laws  and  circumstances,  mar- 
ried women's  suits  have  been  properly  brought  in  the 
following  modes:  (1)  By  husband  and  wife  jointly  ;i 
(2)  by  the  wife  and  her  trustee  ;  ^  (3)  bj^  the  wife  through 
her  next  friend  ;3  and  (4)  by  the  wife  alone.*  The  first 
mode  was  the  only  one  at  common  law,  unless  the  wife 


§    439  SUITS    EY    MARRIED    WOriEN.  634 

had  for  some  reason  the  capacity  of  a  fevime  sole;  the 
S3cond  and  third  were  the  usual  modes  of  procedure  in 
equity  respecting  equitable  separate  property' ;  and  the 
fourth  was  the  mode  in  which  a  wife,  who  on  account 
of  her  husband's  civil  death,  etc.,  had  the  capacities  of 
a  femme  sole,  brought  suit  at  common  law,  and  the 
usual  way  in  v.'hich  she  sues  under  modern  statutes. 
Although  many  statutes  giving  married  women  niodes 
of  suit  unknown  at  common  law  have  been  construed 
to  supersede  the  common-law  modes,  and  to  make  a 
suit  brought  as  at  common  law  improper,^  a  statute 
whicli  enables  a  married  woman  to  sue  by  next  friend 
does  not  necessarily  deprive  her  of  the  privilege  of 
proceeding  jointly  with  him  as  at  common  law;®  and 
in  other  eases,  the  common-law  mode  has  been  held 
not  wholly  superseded.'^ 

1  Havves  Parties,  |?  63-00  ;  post,  ?  4^9. 

2  See  Smith  v.  C'happell,  ."1  Conn.  530,  SM  ;  pnst,  \  -I-IO, 
a    Bcin  r.  Heath,  0  How.  21^,  2W  ;  post,  ?  -KO. 

4  Woothington  v.  Cooke,  52  Md.  237,  COT  ;  post,  ?  441. 

5  SfO  Kockwfll  J'.  Clark,  44  Conn.  .534;  Havner  >•.  Smith,  63  HI. 
4"0,  432  ;  .Stiimpoffskl  v.  Hoop<T,  75  111.  242.  245  ;  T\ntle  v.  Chi 'ago, 
42  Iowa,  51S  :  Hannon  v.  Ha<l(1en,  10  Hush,  fi64,  Of,7  :  Forbids  v.  Tuoker- 
niin,  115  JIuss.  115  ;  Alexanflc'r  /•.  fTOOflwiii,  .>!  X.  H.423,  424  ;  Harris)'. 
Wfbstt-r,  .5S  X.  II.  4SI  ;  Cooper  v.  Alger,  51  N.  H.  172  ;  Whiflrter  '•. 
Coleman,  47  N.  H.  21)7  :  Tantum  v.  Coleman,  2Q  N.  J.  Eq.  128 ; 
Palmer  !•.  Davis,  2.S  X.  Y.  242. 

6  Abraham  v.  Tappe,  60  Md.  317,  323  ;  Herzberg  r.  Sachse>  60  Md. 
426,  432. 

7  See  Kavs  v.  Ph"lan,  in  Cal.  12S,  120  ;  East  v.  Cox,  .57  Ga.  2.52; 
Windsor  r.  rtell,  61  U\.  071,  070;  Smith  v.  Silence,  4  Iowa,  :C1,  .324; 
Phelps?'.  Walthen,  S.  C.  Mo.  18S4;  Johnson  v.  Cummings,  15  N.J.  Eq, 
97,  106. 

\  439.  Suits  by  husband  and  wife  jointly.  —  At  common 
law,  on  all  riglits  of  action  in  which  the  wife  liad  any 
interest,  the  husband  and  wife  sued  jointly,'  not  only 
because  thej^  each  had  substantial  interests  at  stake,^ 
but  also  because  the  Avife's  legal  existence  was  merged 
in  that  of  hor  husband  ;^  .so  that  they  so  sued  not  only 
for  all  d'-images  to  her  person  or  property,  and  for  all 


685  SXTITS   BY   MARRIED   WOMEN.  ?   439 

her  debts/  but  even  in  suits  by  her  as  administratrix 
or  guardian  .5  Tlie  suit  was  really  the  suit  of  the 
husband,  as  it  was  in  his  exclusive  control,^  and  as  he 
could  eniplo3^  tlie  counsel,"  and  was  alone  responsible 
for  costs.*  When  husband  and  wife  sue  jointly,  her 
interest  must  afifimatively  appear,^  and  tlie  marriage 
must  be  alleged."^  If  she  sues  alone,  the  declaration 
may  be  amended  and  her  liusband  joined. '^  If  she 
sued  alone  and  no  objection  was  made  by  plea,  none 
could  have  been  made  afterwards  ; '-  still,  tliough  a  suit 
brought  by  her  alone  for  partition  liad  reaclaed  its  end 
without  objection,  the  title  passed  would  not  have  been 
good,i3  for  the  husband's  substantial  riglits  would  not 
have  been  destroyed.''  In  suits  respecting  equitable 
separate  estate  it  Avas  never  necessary  to  join  the 
husband ;  '^  and  under  statutes  creating  statutory 
separate  estate  this  is  rarely  required.'^  Whether  in 
such  suits  the  husband  maj^  be  joined  as  a  mere  formal 
party  seems  to  be  disputed,  and  to  depend  very  largely 
on  the  character  of  the  suit ; ''  sometimes  hisjoinder  is 
required  wiiere  he  has  no  rights,  merely  for  con- 
formity.18  Whenever  he  has  actual  interests  he  may 
of  course  be  joined.'* 

1  Hawes  Parties,  U  63-6P. 

2  Discussed  ante,  U  171-183. 

3  Discussed  ante,  U  38,  39,  331. 

4  Burger  v.  Belsley,  45  111.  72,  74.  See  Lignoski  7'.  Bruce,  8  Fla. 
2f.O  ;  Gee  v.  Lewis,  20  Ind.  ]4!i ;  Trible  v.  Fryer,  5  Marsh.  J.  J.  17H  ; 
Pettv  V.  Malier,  14  Mon.  B.  246;  Anderson,  11  Bush,  8'J7  :  Bodgett  )•. 
Ebbing,  24  Miss.  243 ;  Wyatt  v.  Simpson,  8  W.  Va.  394 ;  Hawes 
Parties,  J?  63-fi6. 

.5  Bricli  J'.  Fisher,2  Colo.  709,710;  Byrne?'.  Van  Hoesen,  5  Johns. 66  ; 
Mitchell  V.  Wright,  4  Tex.  283. 

G    Vick  V.  Pope,  81  N.  C.  22,  26  ;  post,  1 460. 

7  Frazler  v.  Felton,  1  Hawks,  231,  237,;  iwst,  U  460,  4fil. 

8  Bellinger  v.  Thomson,  2  Rich.  Eq.  :^0 ;  ante,  i  437. 

n  Lewis  ■!'.  Moore,  2.5  Ark.  63  ;  Ridgely  ?i.  Crandall,  4  Md.  435 ; 
Pickering  r.  De  Kochemont,45  X.  H.  67  ;  a7ite,  I  431,  n.  2. 

10    Milton  V.  Haden,  32  Ala.  30 ;  Tanner  v.  White,  15  Ala.  798. 


§   440  SUITS   BY   MAKKIED   WOMEN.  636 

11  Gliek  V.  Hartman,  10  Iowa,  410 ;  Sherron  v.  Hall,  4  Lea,  40S. 

12  Quarrier  v.  Baltimore,  20  W.  Va.  424  ;  post,  \  444. 

13  Spring  V.  Sandford,  7  Paige,  5.50. 

14  See  ante,  |?  14S,  14G,  151. 

15  Bradley  v.  Emerson,  7  Vt.  369,  371  ;  post,  ?  440  ;  ante,  ?  210. 

16  Emerson  t>.  Clayton,  32  III.  493,  497;  Hollingsworth,  8  Ind.  257; 
post,  ?  441. 

17  Pro.  Keys  v.  Phelan,  10  Cal.  128,  129  ;  HerzbPrer ''.  Sachso,  fiO  Md. 
426,432;  Burns  r.  I.ynde,  6  Allen,  305.  Contra,  Havner  v.  Smith,  63 
111.  430,  432  ;  Harris  i>.  Webster,  58  N.  H.  481.    See  cases  ante,  1 438. 

18  See  citations  supra,  n.  17. 

11  Wine;  v.  riondmon.  75  Til.  150  ;  Henry  v.  Gregory,  29  Mich.  63  ; 
Armstrong  v.  Colby,  47  Vt.  360. 

§  440.  Suits  of  married  women  by  trustee  or  next  friend. 
—  When  a  married  woman  has  .separate  property,  and 
a  trustee  is  named,  he  should  join  with  her;i  though 
if  the  proceeding  be  adverse  to  him,  she  sues  by  her 
next  friend,  making  liim  a  defendant.^  Inasmuch  as 
there  is  quite  commonly  no  trustee  named  in  scttlo- 
menls  creating  separate  estate,  and  when  one  is  named 
ho  is  often  the  husband,^  and  inasmuch  as  when  none 
is  named  the  husband  is  presumed  to  be  and  is  treated 
as  such,*  these  suits  are  frequently  brought  by  the 
husband  and  wife  jointly.  But  when  so  joined  the 
husband  has  no  such  power  over  the  suit  as  he  has 
over  the  joint  suits  of  himself  and  wife  at  law.'  The 
usual  mode,  however,  in  which  a  married  woman  pro- 
ceeds in  equity  concerning  lier  separate  rights  is  by 
next  friend.^  The  next  friend  is  joined  in  order  that 
the  court  may  have  a  person  S2ii  Juris  subject  to  its 
orders,"  and  in  order  tliat  there  may  be  some  one  re- 
sponsible for  costs.*  The  "s\ife  need  not  have  any 
special  permission  to  sue  by  next  friend;^  and  if  she 
has  sued  alone  she  may  amend  and  join  her  next 
friend.i"  Her  husband  is  generally  her  next  friend," 
and  in  one  case  this  is  said  to  be  his  right  if  he  has  no 
conflicting  interests  ;  12  but  it  is  believed  that  anj'  one 
may  be  next  friend, '^  and  that  the  husband  is  under 


! 


637  SUITS    BY    MARRIED    WOMEN.  g    440 

disability  to  be  so  when  he  has  conflicting  interests.'* 
The  wife  suing  her  husband  must  proceed  by  next 
friend.'^  Slie  may  by  her  next  friend  sue  the  trustees 
of  her  separate  estate,'^  or  file  a  bill  for  discovery  to 
aid  a  suit  which  she  is  prosecuting  alone  at  law.'' 
Though  a  married  woman  is  not  bound  by  a  bill  filed 
by  her  husband  for  her  and  himself  jointly-,'*  :-;he  is 
bound  by  one  filed  by  him  as  her  next  friend. '^  The 
next  friend  may  make  the  affidavit  to  the  bill.""  But 
she  is  the  substantial  party,  and  if  she  gives  him  secu- 
rity for  costs,  may  dismiss  the  bill  against  his  wishes.^ 
She  cannot,  however,  sue  at  law  by  next  friend,"  un- 
less she  is  so  empowered  by  statute;^-""  and  a  statute 
enabling  her  to  sue  at  law  by  next  friend  does  not 
necessarily  destroy  her  right  to  sue  jointly,  if  she  so 
chooses. 2* 

1  See  Friend  r.  Oliver, 27  Ala.  532, r,34  ;  Smith  v.  Chi;ppell,r:[  Conn. 
589,593;  .Sflienk  v.  Ellingwood,  3  Edw.  175.  See  Alston  c.  Joaes,  2 
Barb.  Ch.  397,  401. 

2  Robert  v.  West,  15  Ga.  122, 148  ;  Kenley,  3  Miss.  751,  753. 

3  See  ante,  I  202. 

4  Kiley,  25  Conn.  154,  Ifil ;  ante,  ?  202. 

5  See  post,  ?  460. 

6  Bein  ?•.  Heath,  6  How.  228,  240;  Harper  v.  Whitehead,  ."S  Ga. 
138,  144  ;  Kenlev,  3  Miss.  751,  753  ;  Grant  v.  Van  Schoonboven,  9  Paige, 
255,257:  37  Am.  Dec.  393;  Garlick  )•.  Strong,  3  Paige,  440;  Jordan  v. 
Gray,  19  Ohio,  618  ;  Bellinger  v.  Thomson,  2  Rich.  Eq.  30;  liaker,  1 
Bail.  Eq.  Ifi5  ;  Leftwick  v.  Hamilton,  9  Heisb.  310,  313  ;  Bradley  v. 
Emerson,  7  Vt.  369,  371. 

7  lieftwiok  v.  Hamilton,  9  Heisk.  310,  313. 

8  Harper  v.  Whitehead,  :;3  Ga.  138,  144  ;  ante,  i  4.37. 

9  Towner,  7  How.  Pr.  387. 

10  Garlick  r.  Strong,  3  Paige,  440  ;  Willis  r.  Underbill,  6  How.  Pr. 
96.  Consult  ante,  I  439  ;  post,  ?  444. 

11  Bein  v.  Heath,  B  How.  22S,  240. 

12  Bradley  v.  Emerson,  7  Vt.  369,  371. 

13  Leftwick  v.  Hamilton,  9  Heisk.  310,  313  ;  Garlick  v.  Strong,  3 
Paige,  440. 

14  Bradley  r.  Emerson,  7  Vt.  369,  371. 

15  Hunt  V.  Booth,  1  Freem.  Ch.  215  ;  Kenley,  3  Miss.  751, 753  ;  ante, 
!43S. 

16  Robert  v.  West,  15  Ga.  122,  148. 

H.  &  W.  — 54. 


g   441  SUITS   BY    MARRIED   WOMEX.  638 

17  Bellinger  v.  Thomson,  2  Rich.  Eq.  30. 

18  Blackwell  v.  Bragg,  78  Va.  529 ;  post,  ??  400,  461. 

19  Bcin  V.  Heath,  6  How.  228,  239,  240 ;  post,  i  461. 

20  Leftwick  r.  Hamilton,  9  Heisk.  310,  313.  See  Hopkins  v.  Neal, 
2  Strange.  102R  ;  Head.  3  Atk.  oil  ;  Witts  v.  Campbell,  12  Ves.  493; 
Pryor  v.  Ryburn,  16  Ark.  671  ;  Kilpatrick  r.  Stozier,  67  Ga,  247  ; 
Humes  r.  Shillington,  22  Md.  346  ;  Helms  r.  Francisciis,  2  Bland.  .'''44; 
20  Am.  T>v<:  402  ;  Qninn  r.  Moss,  12  Smedes  &  M.  aio  ;  Colden  v. 
Moore.  3  Edw.  Ch.  311 ;  20  Cent.  L.  J.  230. 

21  Browner  ;■.  Bell,  30  Ga.  334,  336. 

22  Jordan  r.  Gray,  19  Ohio,  618. 

23  Smith,  18  Fla.  789  ;  Frazier  v.  White,  49  Md.  1,  8 ;  Fox  v.  Tooke, 
34  ilo.  .50.1. 

24  Herzberg  v.  Sachse,  60  Md.  426,  432  ;  ante,  §  4-J8. 

g  441.  Suits  ofmarried  women  alone.  —  1.  Independently 
of  stafufe.  At  ooiiinion  law,  a  married  woman  could 
sue  in  her  own  name  alone,  in  all  cases  where  she  had 
the  capacities  of  a  femrne  sole;  i  that  is  to  say,  (1)  when 
lier  husband  was  presumedlj^  dead  ;  ^  (2)  when  he  was 
civilly  dead  ;  ^  (3)  when  he  was  an  alien  residing  abroad  ;  * 
(4)  when  he  had  permanentlj^  abandoned  her  and  the 
State  ;  ^  and  (5)  when  he  had  been  divorced  from  her  a 
vinculo  matrimonii,^  or  a  mensa  et  tkoroJ  But  her 
husband  joined  though  she  sued  in  a  representative 
capacity,^  and  his  mere  consent  could  not  enabl3  her  to 
sue  alone,  for  husband  and  wife  cannot  by  agreement 
destroy  their  personal  status.^  Nor  could  she  sue  alone 
in  other  cases  in  courts  of  equity,  on  account  of  the 
question  of  costs.'" 

2.  Under  statutes.  In  many  States  statutes  expressly 
provide  that  married  women  may  sue  alone  generally 
or  in  special  cases  ;  and  usually  the  construction  of  such 
statutes  involves  no  particular  difficulties.'^  The  au- 
thority to  sue  alone  in  one  class  of  cases  does  not, 
however,  aftect  the  procedure  in  other  ca.ses ; '-  the 
stattite  in  this  respect  must  be  strictly  construed.'''  A 
statute  authorizing  a  itiarried  woman  to  sue  alone  as  to 
her  "separate  estate"  has  been  held  to  apply  only  to 


I 


639  SUITS   EY   JIARRIED   WOMEN.  §   441 

statutory  sepai"ate  property."  As  to  the  implied  powers 
of  married  women  to  sue  alone  there  is  more  ditficulty; 
A  statute  enabling  a  wife  to  make  contracts  as  if  sole 
impliedly  authorizes  her  to  sue  alone  thereupon.'*  A 
statute  making  lier  a,  fevime  sole  as  to  her  separate  prop- 
erty, with  tlie  sole  control  thereof,  enables  her  to  sue 
alone  respecting  it,'^  in  replevin,  for  example.'^  When 
a  married  woman  is  absolutely  entitled  to  the  proceeds 
of  a  right  of  action,'*  it  is  said  that  she  may  sue  alone.'" 
When  she  is  empowered  to  sue  alone,  most  cases  hold 
that  it  is  error  to  join  lier  husband,-"  though  there  are 
also  eases  to  the  contrary;^  if  tlie  husband  has  any 
actual  interest  he  may  of  course  join.*^ 

1  Aiile,  II  3;n-3;iS;  .Stewart  M.  &  D.  ?J  174,  175,  177.  102,  322,  4S0,  449 
452,  4G.I,  474,  475,  See  ClarU  v.  Valentine,  41  Ga.  143,  145  ;  Love  v. 
Moyneban,  10  lU.  27'J,  2S2  ;  Burger  v.  Belsley,  45  tit.  72,  74  :  Smith  v. 
Silence,  4  Iowa,  321,  :i24  ;  Laughlin  v.  Eaton,  54  Me.  1.57,  15!) ;  Worth- 
mgton  V.  Cooke,  52  Md.  2!)7,  SOS  ;  Gregory  r.  Pierce,  4  Met.  47s,  479  ; 
Gregory  v.  Paul,  15  Mass.  31,  32  ;  itose  c.  Bates,  12  JIo.  30 ;  Osborn  v. 
Nelson,  50  Barb.  375;  Benachim  i\  Pn.tt,  1  Ohio  St.  400,  405;  Fall- 
wickU-  ''.  Keith,  1  Heisk.  3(iO,  361 ;  Cole  v.  Seeley,  20  Vt.  220  ;  60  Am. 
Dec.  25S  ;  Hawes  Parties,  ?  63. 

2  Smith  V.  Silence,  4  Iowa,  321,  324  ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  J  474. 

i    Bradley  v.  Emerson,  7  Vt.  309,  370  ;  Stewart  :*!.  &  D.  |  475. 

4  Gregory  v.  Paul,  15  Mass.  31,  32  ;  siipifi,  n.  1. 

5  Love  V  .  Moynehan,  IC  III.  279,  2S2  ;  Stewart  JL  &  D.  §J  174, 175  ; 
SKprrt,  n.  1 ;  ante,  \  332. 

6  Webster,  58  Me.  140,  145;  4  Am.  Rep,  2.v{  ;  Motlev  r.  Sawver,  34 
Me.  540,  542;  Berry  I'.Teel,  12R,  1.267,  2ftS;  Stewart  M"cfe  I),  jf  4-!0,449. 

7  Benadum  r.  Pratt,  1  Ohio  St.  400,  4a5  ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  JJ  430,449. 

8  Buck  !•.  Fischer,  2  Colo.  T.  709  ;  ante,  J  439. 

9  Beach,  2  Hill,  260,  261 ;  38  .\m.  Dec.  584  ;  Stewart  M.  &.Ji.i  181. 

10  Harper  v.  Whitehead.  33  Ga,  i:i8, 144  ;  ante,  U  4-57.  440. 

11  See  McConeghy  r.  McC'aw,  31  Ala.  447  ;  Guttnian  v.  Scamraell, 
7  Cal.  455  ;  Allen  !■.  Eldridge,  1  Colo.  2sS  ;  Wilkiiis  v.  Miller,  9  Ind. 
100,  101  ;  Kramer  r.  Conger,  Ki  Iowa,  4;54  ;  Pancoast  v.  Burnell,  32 
Iowa,  394  ;  Dickson  v.  Kuiidul,  19  Kan.  212 ;  Furrow  )•.  Chapin,  13  Kan. 
107;  Hadley  v.  Brown,  2  Kun.  41t> ;  Davis  r.  Herrick,  37  Me.  397; 
Tunks  c.  Grover,  57  Me,  .5sii,  5-!H;  Fowle  r.  Tidd,  15  Grav.94,  :»5  ;  Burke 
r.  Cole,  97  Mass.  114,  115;  Spencer  v.  St.  Paul,  22  Minn.  29  ;  Boal  v. 
Morgner,  4R  Mo.  4s,  .=i'i ;  Cocippr  r.  Alger,  51  N.  H.  172,  175  ,  Sigel  V, 
Johns,  58  Barb.  62u,  62-  ;  Duiby  r.  Callaghau,  16  N.  Y.  73. 

12  Gerald  v.  McKenzle,  27  Ala.  166, 170. 

13  See  ante,  §  16. 

14  Gurald  v,  McKeuzie,  27  Ala.  166, 170. 


l\  442-443       SUITS  by  married  women.  640 

15  Beynand  v.  Memphis,  7  Baxt.  279. 

16  Emerson  ?j.  Clayton.  32  III.  40S,407;  Gibson,  io  Wis.  2:>,  2G ;  2S 
Am.  Rep.  527.  See  Beavers  r.  Bancum,  H3  Ark.  7-2;  Meriwether  i\ 
Smith,  44  Ga.  .t41,  543;  Forbes  v.  Tuckerman,  115  Mass.  IIT).  lis  ; 
Nininger  v.  Commissioners,  10  Minn.  133  ;  Boal  v.  Morguer,  46  Mo.  4S ; 
Hawes  Parties,  'i  C6. 

17  Waterson  v.  Matteson,  4  H.  I.  539. 

18  See  2)ost,  I  447. 

19  Anderson  v.  Friend,  71  111.  475,  477. 

20  Havner  r.  Smith ,  03  III.  430, 432.  See  Rockwell  r.  Clark ,  44  Conn. 
534  ;  StatiipotTski  i\  Uooper,  75  111.  242,245;  Tuttle  r.  Chieago.  42  Iowa, 
56S;  Al-xanih'r?'.  Goodwin,. 54  IS'.  H.  423,424  ;  Whiddi-ii  v.  ColiTiian, 
47  X.  H.  2  17;  Cooper  v.  Alerer,  51  X.  H.  172;  Ifanis  r.  Wcbstpr,  .5S 
N.  H.  4S1  ;  Tantuin  v.  Coleman,  26  N.  J.  Eq.  12-)  ;  I'almer  i'.  Uavis, 
28  N.  Y.  242;  ante,  §438. 

21  Windsor  v.  Bell,  61  Ga.  071,  670  ;  ante,  ?  433. 

22  Hayner  v.  Smith,  03  111.  430,  432 ;  Henry  v.  Gregory,  29  Mieh.  OS,  69. 

g  442.  Tlio  causes  of  action  onwhiolimarriadwonion  may 
sue.  —  The  cau.se  of  action  on  which  a  suit  of  a  married 
woman  is  brought  may  be  an  antenuptial  or  postnup- 
tial injury  to  or  contract  with  her,  or  a  chose  in  action 
a.ssigned  to  her  before  or  after  her  marriage,  and  it  may 
concern  herself  or  her  property ;  or  the  suit  may  be  for 
relief  respecting  her  property,  general  or  separate.  The 
mode  of  procedure  in  each  case  is  elsewhere  seiiarately 
discussed;'  it  depends  very  largely  on  the  substantial 
rights  of  hu.sband  and  wife,^  and  therefore  differs  with 
circumstances  and  with  resjiect  to  different  kinds  of 
property. 

1  See  titles  in  index. 

2  See  aiUe,  ?  429. 

I  443.  The  defenses  in  suits  brought  by  married  women. 
—  The  defense  of  the  woman's  coverture  i.->,  of  course,  a 
defense  peculiar  to  married  women's  suits  ; '  her  disa- 
bilities to  some  extent  atfect  the  defense  of  limitations  ;  '■^ 
and  the  fact  of  her  husband's  joinder  to  some  degree 
complicates  the  principles  relating  to  the  defense  of  set- 
off.3  As  to  other  defenses  there  seem  to  be  no  points 
peculiar  to  suits  of  married  women. 


641  SUITS   BY   MARRIED   WOMEN.  §   444 

1  Discussed  ix>st,  I  4-14. 

2  Discussed  post,  ?  445. 

S  See  McMalion  v.  Burchell,  5  Hare,  322  ;  3  Hare,  n7  ;  Elihank  v. 
Srontohen,  ."i  Ves.  737  ;  I'iirr  v.  Taylor,  10  Ves.  574  ;  Gordon,  1  (Jb-ii  & 
.1.  347  :  Ranking  !'.  Barnard,  5  Madd.  32  ;  Johnson  v.  King, 20  Ala.  270  ; 
Wingate  v.  Parsons,  4  Del.  Ch.  117,  122 ;  Carver,  S^i  Ind.  241,  244  ;  Han- 
ralian  ;•.  Leclerg,  15  La.  An.  204,  205  ;  Lane  v.  Fallen,  16  Md.  3.i2,  3.57  ; 
Carpenter  v.  Leonard,  5  Minn.  1.55;  Pierce  v.  Dnstin,  24  N.  H.  117; 
Mollan  r.  Griffith,  3  Paige,  402;  Fergus<in  v.  Lothrop,  15  Wend.  625; 
Jamison  )'.  Brad.v,  6  fSerg.  &  R.  46(< ;  o  Am.  Dec.  4MJ ;  Murray  ?i.  Wil- 
liamson, 3  Binn.  135;  Fick  v.  Hake,  6  Watts,  131  :  Rohirts  v.  Adams. 
2  S.  C.  3H7,  343  ;  Kennedy  v.  Badgett,  19  S.  C  Sill,  504  ;  Hubby  v  Camp- 
lin,22Te.\;.  582,583. 

§  444.  The  plea  of  coverture  against  married  women.  —  If 
the  married  woman  has  a  right  of  action,  but  pursues 
the  wrong  remedy,  as  if  she  sues  alone  when  her 
husband,  1  or  her  trustee  or  next  friend, ^  should  be 
joined,  her  coverture  must  be  set  up  by  a  plea  in  abate- 
ment,* or  if  her  coverture  appears  on  the  face  of  the 
pleadings  by  demurrer ;  *  and  in  the  absence  of  .such 
plea  or  demurrer  the  objection  is  waived  and  cannot  be 
made  at  all.^  If  she  sues  jointly  with  a  man  who 
apparently  has  no  interest,  and  does  not  allege  their 
marriage,  the  declai-ation  is  demurrable  ;*  .so  if,  though 
the  marriage  be  alleged,  the  interest  of  the  wife  and 
her  iglit  to  sue  do  not  affirmatively  appear,  the 
declaration  is  demurrable  ; '  and  in  sucli  cases  the  defect 
is  not  cured  by  verdict.^  But  if  the  wife  has  no  right 
of  action  at  all,  the  defendant  may  have  a  nonsuit  ;* 
and  if  this  is  apparent  on  the  pleadings,  it  is  fatal  on 
demurrer,'*  or  in  arrest  of  judgment,  or  on  error.''  Of 
course,  if  the  wife  has  the  right  to  sue  alone  and  so 
sues,  a  plea  of  coverture  is  bad.'^ 

1  Ross  V.  Linder,  12  .S.  C.  502. 

2  Kcnley,  3  Miss.  751,  753 ;  infra,  n.  3. 

3  Dntton  v.  Rice,  53  N.  H.  416,  49!).  S.  P.,  Packet  v.  Clongh,  20 
Wall.  .52s,  539;  Chirac  r.  Reinicker,  II  Wheat.  2S0.  .303;  James  v. 
Stewart,  0  Ala.  855  ;  Kimbro  v.  First,  1  McAr.  61,  66  ;  Young  v.  Ward, 
21  111.  2J3.  225;  Dickin,son  ?>.  Trout,  s  I'.usli,  441.  443;  Walker  v.  Gilli- 
man,  45  Me.  28,  :ffl  ;  Winslow  r.  Gilbnth.  40  Me.  578;  Hayden  v. 
Attlehoro,  7  Grav,  33S,  343;  Kenlcv,  :;  Miss.  751,  7.53;  Simmons  v. 
Thomas,  43  Miss.  31  ;  5  Am.  Rep.  470  ;  Bi'Il  r.  Con.solidated,  32N,  J.  L. 
102  ;  Dillaye  v.  Parks,  31  Barb.  132  ;    Xewtou  v.  Robinson,  1  Tayl. 


^  445  SUITS  BY  MAKRIED  WOMEX.  642 

72,  75:  Sheidle  v.  Weishlee,  16   Pa.    St.    134,  138 ;    Surt?n   r.   Brails- 
ford.  ?  Bay.  3;«.  338 ;  Quarrier  v.  Baltimore,  20  W.  Va.  424. 

1  Mott  I'.  Smith,  16  Cal.  r,m  ;  Tissot  v.  Throckmortosi,  6  Cal.  471, 
473  ;  Tapley  10  Minn.  44S  ;  Kenle.v,  3  iliss.  751,  753. 

5  Chirac  7..  Reinicker,  11  Wheat.  2S0,  303  ;  Kenley,  3  >Iis.s.  751,  753 ; 
Surtell  V.  BraUsford,  2  Bay,  333,  338 ;  Ross  v.  Linder,  12  S.  C.  592  ; 
supra,  n.  3. 

6  Tanner  v.  White,  15  Ala.  798. 

7  Hj'att  i\  Cochran,  85  Ind.  231 ;  Williams  v.  Braiaard,  52  Vt.  392  ; 
ante,  H31>  n.  2. 

8  Smith  i:  New  England,  45  Conn.  416. 

9  Dntton  »'.  Rice,  53  X.  H.  496, 499.  S.  P.,  James  v.  Stewart,  9  Ala.  855; 
Kimbro  v.  First,  1  McAr.  61,  06  ;  Newton  v.  Robinson,  Tayl.  72,  76. 

10  See  Kenley,  3  Miss.  751,  753  ;  supra,  n.  4  ;  infra,  n.  11. 

11  Kimbro  v.  First,  1  McAr.  61,  G6. 

12  Farman  v.  ChamberlaiTi,  74  Ind.  82,83. 

g  445.  Plea  of  limitations  against  married  women. — 
Althougli  long  dela^'inay  raise  a,  prima  facie  presump- 
tion of  ijayment  independently  of  statute,^  the  plea  of 
limitations  as  an  absolute  bar  depends  entirely  on  stat- 
ute ;  ■■'  and  Statutes  of  Limitation  are  of  equal  force  in 
equity  and  at  law.^  By  the  Briti-sh  statute  of  James,* 
and  mo.st  of  the  American  statutes  based  upon  it,^  a 
si^ecial  saving  is  made  in  favor  of  married  women,  .so 
that  as  a  general  rule  a  married  woman  is  not  barred 
from  prosecuting  a  right  which  accrues  during  covert- 
ure, by  any  lapse  of  time  occurring  before  the  disso- 
lution of  her  marriage.''  Thus,  when  a  party  acquires 
property  from  a  husband  during  coverture,  tlie  wife  of 
such  husband  is  not  barred  from  claiming  the  prop- 
erty as  hers  by  any  lapse  of  time  before  his  death ; ' 
and  against  a  wife  wlio  lends  money  to  her  husband, 
limitations  begin  to  run  only  from  the  date  of  his  death 
or  divorce.^  In  the  statutes  of  Iowa,  Missouri,  New 
York,  and  Wisconsin,  there  seem  to  be  no  .saving 
clauses  in  favor  of  married  women  ;9  in  Massachusetts 
the  saving  clause  operates  only  if  the  wife  is  "  under 
disability ";  1*  in  California, i^  Indiana,''^  and  Ken- 
tucky,'^  only  if  she  cannot  sue  alone,  and  in  West  Vir- 


643  SUITS   BY   MAKRIED   WOMEN.  §   445 

ginja,  cases  in  which  she  can  sue  alone  are  excepted 
from  the  saving  operation  of  the  chiuse.''  But  Avhether 
statutes  enabling  married  women  to  sue  alone  by 
imi^liPAtion  repeal  the  saving  clause  in  the  Statute  of 
Limitation,  is  disputed  :  on  the  one  hand  it  is  held  that 
when  a  wife  can  sue  as  if  unmarried,  the  reason  for  the 
exception  is  gone,  and  therefore  the  exception  can  no 
longer  exist  ;i^  wliile  it  is  on  the  other  hand  main- 
tained that  the  privileges  of  married  women  can  be 
removed  only  by  express  legislation,  and  that  their 
safety  from  limitations  secured  by  the  general  statute 
must  continue  to  exist  until  exx>ressly  taken  away.'^ 
In  coming  to  a  determination  on  this  point,  the  lan- 
guage of  the  particular  statutes  is  of  course  of  great 
importance.!^  A  statute  which  excepts  persons  "  under 
legal  disabilities,"  excepts  married  women  so  far  as 
they  are  under  disabilities  onlj^^^  Coverture  is  not, 
however,  the  only  ground  for  exception  under  the  stat- 
utes ;  infancy  is  another  common  one ;  and  a  married 
woman  cannot  tack  one  of  these  disabilities  to  an- 
other.'^ Thus,  if  an  infant  with  a  right  of  action  iTiar- 
rics,  the  statute  begins  to  run  in  spite  of  her  coverture, 
when  she  comes  of  full  age,'^"  and  so  when  limitations 
have  not  run  against  a  married  woman  on  account  of 
her  coverture,  and  she  dies,  her  lieirs  cannot  set  up 
their  infancy  as  a  furtlier  reason  why  the  statute 
should  not  run.-'  But  if,  when  tlie  right  accrues,  the 
woman  is  both  married  and  an  infant,  the  statute  be- 
gins to  run  only  when  both  of  the  disabilities  are 
removed.-'-'  If  the  statute  once  begins  to  run,  no  subse- 
quently incurred  disability  can  stop  it;^  therefore  a 
wife  is  not  saved  from  the  operation  of  the  statute  if 
she  had  the  right  of  action  at  the  time  of  her  marriage  ;  ^^ 
and  so,  if  her  right  accrues  during  coverture,  and  her 
husband  dies,  the  statute  begins  to  run  on  the  day  of 


I    445  SUITS   BY   MARRIED   WOMEN.  644 

his  death,  and  does  not  stop  when  she  marries  again. ^ 
The  plea  of  limitations  can  be  set  ni)  only  by  tl.a  par- 
ties or  those  claiming  under  them.^^  The  saving  in 
favor  of  a  married  woman  does  not  prevent  limitations 
from  running  against  her  husband  ^  or  her  assign- 
ees ;  ^  tlie  liusband's  delay  may  bar  his  right  to  the 
estate  during  coverture,  and  to  curtesy;^  and  in  case 
of  her  death,  if  he  has  curtesy,  the  statute  does  not  run 
against  her  heirs  until  the  estate  of  curtesy  has  ter- 
minated.^" Limitations  do  not  run  in  favor  of  a  hus- 
band's heirs  against  his  Avidow's  claim  for  dower.^' 

1  See  Piatt  v.  Smith,  12  Oliio  St.  5(U,  671 ;  Meaner  v.  Hamilton,  27 
Pa.  St.  137, 143. 

2  See  Hodges  r.  Uardcn,  51  Miss.  19!),  201. 

3  Powers  V.  Kutz,  40  Pa.  St.  90,  94. 

4  Alex.  Brit.  Stats,  p.  446. 

5  Tliese  statutes  should  bo  consulted :  See  R.  I.  R.  S.  1882,  pp.  446, 
4o6  ;  Tex.  R.  S.  1879,  U  '■^-^l<  ^-"  !  Bush  v.  Lindsey,  14  Ga.  687,  689. 

6  Meegan  r.  Bovle,  19  How.  130,  1.50  ;  Sledge  r.  Clopton,  6  Ala. 
6S:),  606  ;  Median  )'.  Wvatt,  21  Ala.  813,  835  ;  Drenner  v.  AValker,  21 
Ark.  53!l,  .'Ho;  Flvnt  v.  Hatchett,  9  Ga.  328,  333;  Taylor  v.  Shemwell, 
4  Mon.  B.  575,  57S  ;  Fatheree  v.  Fletcher,  31  Miss.  265,  271  ;  Bnrke  ?•. 
Beveridge,  U  Minn.  205,  211;  McLane -ji.  Moore,  6  Jones,  520,  523; 
McLean  v.  Jackson,  12  Ired.  149, 150  ;  Towers  v.  Hagner,  3  Whart.  48, 
60  ;  Jones  r.  Reeves,  fi  Rich.  132,  137  ;  Murdock  v.  Johnson,  7  Cold. 
605,  619;  and  other  cases  i:i  this  section. 

7  Jones  v.  Reeves,  6  Rich.  132, 137. 

8  Towers  \k  ITagner,  3  Whart.  4S,  60.  Consult  Bradley  v.  Sadler, 
54  Ga.  681,  686  ;  Oswald  v.  Hoover,  43  Md.  300, 388  ;  Fletcher  v.  Updike, 
3  IIuu,  350. 

9  Valle  V.  Ovenhause,  62  Mo.  82,89;  Acker,  81  N.  Y.  143,  148; 
Wood  Limit.  ?  240,  p.  482. 

10  Wood  Limit.  ?  240,  p.  482.     . 

11  Cameron  v.  Smith,  50  CaL  303,  .304  ;  Wilson,  36  Cal.  447,  450. 

12  Eanman  r.  Grul)bs,  20  Ind.  419,  421. 

13  Masterson  v.  Marshall ,  5  Dana,  412,  414, 415. 

14  Wood  Limit.  I  240,  p.  482. 

15  Geisen  v.  Heiderich,  104  111.  .537,  .>10 ;  Enos  r.  Buckler,  04  111. 
458 ;  Havwood  v.  Gunn,  82  III.  3S5,  .391 ;  Castner  v.  Walrod,  S3  111.  171, 
176  •  25  Am.  Rep.  369  ;  Brown  v.  Cousens,  51  Me.  301,  308  ;  Dunham  v. 
Sage,  52  N.  Y.  230. 

16  Morrison  v.  Norman,  47  111.  477,  481 ;  Ball  v.  Bullard,  52  Barb. 
145, 146;  Weisner  v.  Zaun,  39  Wis.  188,  208-210;  Westcott  v.  Miller,  42 
Wis.  4.54,  464, 

17  See  Bush  v.  Lindsey,  14  Ga,  687,  689. 

18  Banman  v.  Grubbs,  26  Ind.  41D,  421, 


645  SUITS   BY    MARRIED   WOMEIf.  g   446 

in  Blackwell  v.  Brags,  'S  Va.  539,  536.  See  Carter  v.  C'antrell,  Ifi 
Alii.  154,  104  ;  Henny  r.  Carson,  59  Pa.  St.  297,  308. 

20  Carter  v.  Cantrell,  16  Ark.  154, 1G4 ;  supra,  n.  13. 

21  Henny  v.  Carson,  59  Pa.  St.  297,  30S. 

23  Blackwell  v.  Bragg,  78  Va.  529,  536. 

2:s  Carter  v.  CantreU,  16  Ark.  154,  164  ;  Welborn  v.  Weaver,  17  Ga. 
2t!7,  270 ;  Masterson  v.  Marshall,  5  Dana,  413,  415 ;  Thorpe  v.  Corwin, 
2J  N.  J.  L.  311,  314  ;  Becton  v.  Alexander,  27  Tex.  659,  669. 

24  Welborn  v.  Weaver,  17  Ga.  267,  270. 

25  McDonald  v.  McGuire,  S  Tex.  361,  365. 

26  State  V.  Layton,  4  Har.  (Del.)  8,  19  ;  Watson  v.  Kelly,  16  X.  J.  L. 
5:7,  524. 

27  Neal  v.  Robinson,  2  Dana,  8G,  88  ;  McDowell  v.  Potter,  8  Pa.  St. 
189,  194  ;  49  Am.  Dec.  503. 

23  Thompson  v.  Peebles,  6  Dana,  387,  390. 

29  Murdoch  v.  Johnson,  7  Cold.  605,  609. 

30  Marple  v.  Myers,  12  Pa,  St.  122, 127. 

31  Webb  V.  Smith,  40  Ark.  17, 24  ;  Mc Whirter  v.  Roberts,  40  Ark.  283. 

§  446.  Special  proceedings  by  married  women.  —  Al- 
though courts  of  equity  are  said  to  have  a  special 
jurisdiction  over  married  women,  this  does  not  mean 
that  married  women  may  proceed  in  equity  as  married 
women,  where  an  unmarried  person  would  have  to 
proceed  at  law.  Suits  in  which  married  women  are 
concerned  are  so  often  brought  in  equity  because  they 
relate  to  equitable  separate  property — to  an  equitable 
title.^  But  when  a  married  woman  has  the  full  legal 
title  and  the  right  to  sue  at  law,  she  cannot  seek  equity's 
protection  for  her  property  in  cases  where  equity  would 
not  relieve  an  unmarried  woman. ^  On  the  other  hand, 
though  authorized  to  sue  at  law  respecting  her  statutory 
seimrate  estate,  she  could  not  sue  at  law  if  her  title 
thereto  were  merely  equitable.*  She  must  proceed 
against  her  husband  in  equity  ;*  but  usually,  if  she  can 
sue,  she  must  choose  her  remedy  as  if  sole.' 

1  See  ante,  ??  210,  211. 

2  Frazior  v.  White,  49  Md.  1,8.    See  Kneeland  v.  Fuller,  51  Me.  518. 

3  Boiling  V.  Mock,  35  Ala.  727,  730. 

4  Porter  v.  Bank,  19  Vt.  410,  417  ;  ante,  ??  53,  433. 

5  See  Dent  v.  Slough,  40  Ala.  518,  524. 


I   447  SUITS   AGAINST   MARRIED   WOMEN.  646 

2  447.  The  ownersMp  of  the  proceeds  of  married  women's 
suits. — That  all  choses  in  action  are  property  seems 
quite  well  settled,  though  some  question  has  been 
raised  as  to  choses  in  action  in  tort.^  And  therefore, 
such  choses  fall  Avithin  the  provisions  of  separate  j^rop- 
ertij  acts ;  they  are  property ;  ^  they  are  proiierty 
acquired  in  any  manner  ;3  but,  of  course,  a  wife's  right 
of  action  for  a  wrong  to  her  is  not  x^i'opertj^  acquired 
by  gift,  grant,  devise,  bequest,  etc.  *  At  common  law, 
where  the  husband  had  a  substantial  right  in  his  wife's 
choses  in  action,  a  judgment  obtained  in  their  joint 
names,  if  i-educed,  went  to  tlio  husband  alone  as  jier- 
sonalty  in  possession,  but  if  not  reduced  to  possession 
before  the  liusband's  deatli,  survived  to  the  -wire.^ 
Under  statutes  securing  a  wife's  choses  in  action  to  her 
separate  use,  thougli  judgment  be  obtained  in  the  joint 
names  of  husband  and  wife,  lie  lias  no  substantial  ini-cr- 
est  in  it  —  no  attacliaV>le  interest,  for  example.^  Still,  to 
prevent  tliis  question  from  arising,  a  married  woman 
should  never  sue  jointly  with  her  husband,  wlion  she 
has  the  authority  to  sue  by  next  friend  or  alone. 

1  Discussed  ante,  U  219,  229,  2:50. 

1'  Boston,  32  31(1.  212,  224  ;  ante,  ><  219. 

3  Chicago  v.  Dunn,  52  111.  200,  2R:!  ;  ante,  {  2."0. 
■i  Hemp  V.  Clark-,  Md.  Law  Rec.  Feb.  2S,  1385. 

5  Antr,  ??  17G,  183,  311. 

6  Hemp  V.  Clark,  Md.  Law  Rec.  Felt.  2i,  188."). 

Article  III.  —  Suits  Against  Married  Women. 

\  448.  Modes  in  which  married  women  may  be  sued. 

§  449.  Suits  jointly  with  husband. 

5  430.  Suits  with  trustee  or  next  friend. 

?  451.  Suits  against  married  women  alone. 

{  452.  The  service  of  process. 

I  453.  The  causes  of  action. 

I  454.  The  defenses. 

?  435.  The  plea  of  coverture  by  married  women. 

I  456.  The  plea  of  limitations  by  married  women. 


647  SUITS  AGAIX.ST   MARRIKD   WOMEN.      §?   448-449 

J  -loT.    Effect  of  jiidgnieiU  against  married  women. 

?  438.    The  execution,  etc.,  of  the  judjfment. 

{  459,    Special  proceedings  agsvlnst  married  women. 

^  448.  The  modes  in  which  married  women  may  be  sued. 
—  Under  different  laws  and  cinnimstances  suits  have 
been  brought  properij'  against  married  women  in  the 
foiiowing  modes:  (1)  Jointlj''  with  husband;  (2)  jointly 
with  trustee  ;  and  (3)  alone.  The  first  was  the  invariable 
mode  at  common  law,  not  only  because  the  husband 
was  jointly  liable  with  the  wife  on  all  her  contracts  and 
torts,'  but  because  ho  had  present  substantial  interests 
in  all  her  property  Avhicli  might  be  affected  by  the 
suit.'-  The  second  was  the  mode  when  the  wife  had  a 
trustee  of  equitable  separate  property.^  The  third  was 
the  mode  in  Avhich  a  wife  with  the  capacities  of  ii  fetnme 
sole  was  sued,  and  is  the  usual  mode  under  the  statutes.* 

1  "Whitman  v.  Delano,  G  X.  H.  .54-'!,  .M5  ;  Prescott  v.  Fisher.  22  111. 
300,  3!);; ;  ante,  H  6G,  67  ;  post,  2  441}.     Consult  Hawes  Parties,  H  6S-70. 

2  See  ante,  U  137,  141,  163. 

3  See  ante,  U  202,  210,211 ;  po«<,  J  450. 

4  Post,  I  451.    Compare  ante,  I  438. 

I  449.  Suits  against  wife  jointly  with  husband.  —  As  a 
rule,  independently  of  statute,  wliethor  at  law  or  in 
equity  (except  as  to  equitable  separate  estate,  of  which 
there  is  a  third  party  trustee,  and  in  whicli  tlie  husband 
has  no  rights' ),  the  liusband  lias  to  be  joined  in  all  suits 
against  his  wife.-  He  was  joined  at  common  law  even 
in  suits  against  her  as  executrix.^  Tlie  grounds  of  her 
liability  mu.st  be  distinctly  alleged.'  Inequity  she  could, 
by  leave  of  court,  answer  separately ;  ^  but  he  had  full 
control  of  the  suit  at  law.^  A  joint  demurrer  might  be 
sustained  as  to  her  alone."  Under  tlie  statutes  he  is  usu- 
ally joined  when  he  is  liable,*  and  not  when  he  is  not  lia- 
ble;^ but  in  some  States  he  must  be  made  a  formal  party.'" 
He  should  bo  joined  in  possessory  actions  against  the 
wife,"  because  her  possession  is  his  possession.''^ 


1 


§?    450-451      SUITS   AGAINST   ilARRIED   WOMEN.  648 

1  See  ante,  U  203,  210,  211 ;  post,  I  -450. 

2  ilarshall  v.  Oakes,  51  Me.  30S  ;  Porter  v.  Bank,  19  Vt.  410,  417; 
ante,'(ii'il;  Hawes  Parties,  J  68.  Because  he  was  jointly  liable .  Ante, 
U  66,  67. 

3  Ludlow  V.  Marsh,  3  N.  J.  L.  083  ;  ante,  I  C>6. 

4  Gaylord  v.  Pajnie,  4  Conn.  190. 

5  Perine  i'.  Swalne,  1  Johns.  Ch.  24  ;  jtoat,  5  461.  See  Schmidt  v. 
Postel,  63  111.  58. 

6  Vick  V.  Pope,  81  X.  C.  22,  26  ;  post,  i  460. 

7  Wooden  r.  Morris,  3  N.  J.  Eq.  65. 

8  Robinson  v.  Trofitter,  109  Mass.  478  ;  ante,  U  66,  67. 

9  Hagebrush  v.  Ragland,  78  111.  400  ;  Carothers  v.  McNese,  43  Tex. 
221. 

10  Md.  Act  1880,  ch.  253,  ??  ."?!,  32  ;  Cook  v.  Ligon,  54  Miss.  372  ;  Ham- 
lin V.  Bridge,  24  Me.  145. 

11  Howard  v.  Valentine,  20  Cal.  282. 

12  Discussed  ante,  §?  119-121. 

§  450.  Suits  against  the  wife  jointly  with,  trustee. — 
Whenever  there  is  a  trustee,  he  should  be  joined  hi 
suits  affecting  the  projiertj^ ;  ^  if  no  trustee  is  named, 
the  husband  is  joined  as  such.^  When  the  wife  answers 
separately,  she  generally  acts  by  her  next  friend.*  If 
she  is  an  infant,  with  separate  j^roperty  and  a  distinct 
defense,  a  guardian  ad  litem  should  be  aiJi^ointed.* 

1  Palmer  v.  Rankins,  30  Ark.  771  ;  ante,  U  202,  211. 

2  Sec  Fears  v.  Brooks,  12  Go..  i:i5, 197  ;  ante,  U  202, 211. 

3  Wolf  V.  Banning,  3  Minn.  202  ;  PhUlips  v.  Burr,  4  Duer,  113  ; 
l)OSt,  I  462. 

4  Nicholson  v.  Wilhorii,  13  Ga.  467. 

I  451.  Suits  against  married  women  alone.  —  Inde- 
pendently of  statute,  a  married  woman  can  be  sued 
alone  only  in  cases  in  which  hy  the  common  law  she 
enjoyed  the  status  of  a,  femme  sole;^  only  when  her 
husband  (1)  Avas  i^resumedly  dead ;  ^  or  (2)  civillj'  dead  ;  ^ 
or  (3)  an  alien  residing  abroad ; '  or  (4)  had  permanently 
abandoned  her  and  the  State  ;  '•>  or  (5)  was  divorced  from 
her.^  Even  in  suits  in  equity  her  husband  had  to  be 
joined,  unless  she  had  a  trustee.'  In  many  States, 
statutes  expressly  authorizing  suits  against  married 
women  alone  have  been  passed  ;  ^  and  statutes  which 


649  SUITS   AGAINST   MARRIED   -WOMEX.  \  452- 

destroy  her  husband's  common-law  liability  on  her 
torts  and  contracts,  or  enable  her  to  incur  liabilities 
unknown  at  common  law,  impliedly  authorize  suits 
against  her  alone,^  unless  they  provide  that  the  husband; 
shall  be  joined  as  a  formal  party. "• 

1  Worthington  v.  Cooke,  52  Md.  297,  308  ;  Gregory  v.  Piiul;JS-1Mass. . 
31,  32,  ;J4  ;  ante,  \l  332-337. 

2  Smith  V.  Silence,  4  Iowa,  321,  324  ;  Stewart  M.  ife  D.  ?  474^. 

3  Worthington  v.  Cooke,  52  Md.  297,  308  ;  Stewart  M.  &:D.-.§>»5. 

4  Gregory  r.  Paul,  15  Mass.  31,  33,  34. 

5  Love  !'.  Moynehan,  16  111.  279,  282  ;  Stewart  M.  &  I1..^J  J74y,175. 
C    Stewart  M.  <fe  D.  \l  430,  449. 

7  Porter  r.  Bank,  19  Vt.  410,  417  ;  ante,  \\  449,  450. 

8  Compare  ante,  \  441. 

9  Morrell  v.  Cawley,  17  Abb.  Pr.  353  ;  ante,  \  425. 
10  Md.  Acts  1880,  ch.  253,  l\  31,  32  ;  ante,  \  449 

g  453.  The  service  of  process  on  married  women.- — At 
oommon  law,  a  married  woman  sued  jointly  with  her 
husband  did  not  have  to  be  summoned  iJersonally  — 
service  on  her  husband  was  sufficient' — unless  the 
proceeding  was  one  afltecting  her  separate  property.-' 
If  the  husband  has  complete  control  of  the  suit  he  can. 
admit  .summons  for  her,  otherwise  not.^  It  has  been 
held  that  one  copy  of  the  summons  left  at  the  family 
residence  is  sufficient  summons  for  both  husband  andi 
wife,*  and  that  they  are  presumed  to  have  the  same 
residence.^  As  personal  service  is  necessary  only  to 
give  ijersonal  jurisdiction,*  it  has  been  held  that  service  ■ 
on  a  married  woman  is  not  necessary  when  the  pro- 
ceeding is  one  in  rem  against  her  seijarate  property  —  a 
case  of  attachment.'  Service  on  a  wife  is  not,  however, 
service  on  her  hu.sband.^ 

1  Hollinger  v.  Bk.  8  Ala.  605  ;  Lord  v.  Strong,  1  Root,  475  ;  King  v, 
McCampbell,  6  Blackf.  435,  430;  Jordan  r.  Anderson,  29  La.  An. 
749,  750;  Ferguson  v.  Smith,  2  Johns.  Ch.  139,  140  ;  :Nichol8on  .v.  Cox, 
83  N.  C.  44,  47  ;  35  Am.  Rep.  556 ;  j/t/ra,  n.  2. 

2  Piggott  V.  Snell,  59  111.  106,  108  ;  Smith  v.  Taylor,  11  Ga.  20,  22  ; 
Moore  r.  Wade,  8  Kan.  ;*!0.  385;  Kepp  v.  Hanna,  2  Bland,  26; 
Kerchner  v.  Kempton,  47  Md.  568,  590 ;  Powers  '•.  Totten,  42  N.  J.  L. 
442,  445  ;  Foote  v.  Lathrop,  53  Barb.  183, 185  ;  Eckerson  c.  VoUluer,  11. 

H.  «fc  W.-65. 


I   453  SOITS   AGAINST   MARRIED   WOMEN.  650 

How.  Pr.  42,  43  ;  Leavitt  v.  Cruger,  1  Paige,  421,  422  ;  Vick  v.  Pope, 
81  N   C.  22,  25  ;  Shelby  v.  Perrin,  18  Tex.  515,  517  ;  suura,  n.  1. 

n  Moore  v.  Wade,  8  Kan.  380,  385  ;  XieUolson  v.  Cox,  83  N.  C.  44, 
47  ;  35  Am.  Rep.  55G. 

4  Lord  V.  Strong,  1  Root,  475. 

5  Pruto  1'.  Duncan,  22  111.  2G  ;  ante,  J?  23,  60 

6  Moore  v.  Wade,  8  Kan.  3S0,  .'ftj. 

7  Brent  v.  Taylor,  fi  Md.  .5.S,  fi3. 

8  Hess  r.  Cole,  23  X.  J.  L.  116,  12.3. 

I  453.  The  causes  of  action  on  which  marriod  women 
may  be  sued.  —  At  common  law.  a  married  Avoinan  was 
liable  to  be  sued  only  on  her  antenuptial  contracts  or 
torts,  and  on  her  postnuptial  torts  which  she  voluntarily 
committed  ;  •  on  such  causes  of  action,  judgment  could 
be  obtained  again.st  her  jointlj^  with  her  husband,  and 
any  pi'operty  of  hers  could  be  seized  in  execution, "  In 
equity  her  equitable  separate  estate  could  bo  made 
liable  by  a  proeeedhig  in  rem  against  it  for  all  sum?  of 
money  which  she  had  i^ropeiiy,  in  accordance  with  the 
rule  prevailing  in  llie  particular  State,  charged  uponit.^ 
Under  .statutes,  slie  may  render  herself  and  her  property 
liable  on  Iier  contracts,'' and  the  only  difficulty  as  to  the 
procedure  in  such  ca.ses  is  whether  the  suit  shall  be 
brouglit  at  law  or  in  equity,  and  whether  the  proceeding 
shall  bo  in  personam  or  m  remj>  When  tlie  contract  is 
binding  on  statutory  seiDarate  estate  only  because  such 
property  is  treated  as  if  it  were  secured  to  the  woman 
by  deed  instead  of  by  statute,  the  proceeding  must  be  in 
equity  and  in  rem,  just  as  if  it  Avere  equitable  .sepai'ate 
property.^  But  when  tlie  contract  is  made  under  the  ex- 
press or  implied  powers  given  1)y  the  terms  of  the  stat- 
ute, the  proceeding  should  be  at  law  as  if  she  were  sole  ;  ^ 
except  tliat  Avhen  the  contract  is  valid  only  by  virtue  of 
a  i^ower  attached  to  an  ownership  of  property,  tlie  opera- 
tion of  the  judgment  must  be  limited  to  such  property.* 

1  See  ante,  U  66,  67,  421-425. 

2  Zachary  i'.  Cadenhoad,  40  Ala.  2:J0  ;  post,  §  458. 


651  SUITS   AGAINST   MARRIED   WOMEN.       ''A    454-  455 

3  See  ante,  \\  206,  207,  211. 

4  Discusssed  ante,  \  \  o6 J-S78. 

5  See  antCy  \l  2w-239,  370-273. 

6  See  Giissoll.  Law  It.  12  Ch.  D.  484  ;  Stillwell  v.  Adams,  2!)  Ark. 
346.  3.51 ;  Carpenter  v.  Mitchi-U,  .iO  111.  470,  474  ;  Jont-s  r.  Ciosthwaits, 
17  Iowa,  393, 403, 404  ;  Worthiiigtoi  v.  Cooke,  52  Md.  2  i7,  308  ;  IJevries  v. 
Conklin,22  Mich.  25.">,  2.3  ),  2«j  ;  S'hafortU  v.  Ambs.  46  Mo.  114,  120,  121  ; 
Puwlev  t'.  Vogel,  42  Mo.  2.11.  "Ml\  remberton  t'.  Johnson,  .ib  Mo.  342, 
:544;  Walker  v.  Dciver,  7:i  Mo.  664,  674;  Vankirlc  ?■  Skillniaii,  34 
N.  J.  L.  10.) ;  .lohi.spn  V.  CummiiiKs,  16  N.J.  Eq.  117,  10.5,  KM!;  Williams 
V.  farroll,  2  Hilt.  4:8.  440;  Dougherty  v.  .Sprinkle,  SS  N.  O.  300,  302; 
Phillips  V.  Graves,  20  Ohio  St.  371,  382  ;  5  Am.  Rep.  675  ;  Kavanaugh  v. 
O'Neill,  53  Wis.  101,  lOG. 

7  Cookson  v.  Toole,  51  111.  519,  521 ;  Leonard  r.  Rogan,  20  Wis.  54C. 
542.  See  Richmond  v.  Tibbies,  26  Iowa,  476;  Van  Metre  v.  Wolf,-.' 
Iowa,  :<4»  ;  r.Iiner  v.  Pearson,  16  Kan.  2S  ;  (iuishaber  v.  Hairinan,  2 
Bush,  320  ;  C'ar.v  r>.  Dixon,  51  Miss.  601 ;  Griffin  r.  Reagran,  52  Miss.  81  ; 
Smith  V.  Doming,  Gl  N.  Y.  251 ;  Conway  v.  Smith,  13  Wis.  137 ;  ante,, 
ii  237,  239,  ::73. 

8  See  Baldwin  v.  Kimmel,  16  Abb.  Pr.  3.53.  "Oi. 

g  454.  The  defenses  of  marriod  women.  —  The  peculiar 
defeu.se  of  married  women  is,  of  course,  the  defense  of 
coverture.!  The  fact  of  coverture  in  .some  casei  atiects 
the  defense  of  limitations;^  and  the  fact  that  the  hus- 
b.tnd  is  joined  sometimes  raises  the  question  as  to  how 
far  a  defense  of  one  will  bo  available  to  the  otlier.^  The 
wife's  bankruptcy,  for  criami^le,  discharges  both  her 
husband  and  herself  from  liability  for  her  debts,* 
while  his  bankruptcj^  discharges  him  alone.''  As  to 
other  defenses,  there  are  no  special  i^oints  relating  to 
married  women,  except  as  far  as  the  management  of 
the  suit  is  concerned.'' 

1  Discussed  pott,  I  4.55. 

2  Discu.ssedpf/s<,  J  450. 

3  See  Floor  v.  Stoigelmaver,  76  Ind.  479,  4S1 ;  State  v.  Layton.  4 
liar.  (Del.)  8, 19;  McDowell  v.  Potter,  8  Pa.  St.  ISJ,  194  ;  49  Am.  Dec. 
503. 

4  Chadwick  v.  Starrctt,  27  Me.  141. 

5  Jones  r.  Glass,  43  Iowa,  345,  346;  AUers  v.  Forbes,  59  Md.  C74,  :^6. 

6  Discussed  ;jOA-<,  1}  4C0-;63. 

§  455.  Tha  plea  of  coverture  Ly  married  women.  —  If  a 
married  woman  is  sued  on  an  obligation  on  wliich  .slie 
is  not  liable  at  all,  she  may,  if  the  defect  is  apparent  on 


?   455  SUITS   AGAINST   MAKItlED   WOMEN.  652 

the  pleadings,  demur  ;i  or  she  may  i^lead  her  covert- 
ure in  bar,^  or  prove  it  under  the  general  issue,^  or 
set  it  up  af:er  judgment  on  a  writ  of  error,  or  a  motion 
to  set  the  jud-^ment  aside  ;  *  and  it  has  been  oven  held 
that  a  judgment  obtained  in  such  a  case  against  a  mar- 
ried woman  is  a,  mere  nullitj^,  and  may  be  so  treated  in 
collateral  proceedings.^  The  plaintift"  cannot  cure  tlie 
defect  in  hi.s  proceedings  by  entering  a  nolle  prosequi 
against  the  wife,  except  in  the  case  of  torts,  bei-ause  in 
a  suit  in  contract  recovery  must  be  had  against  all  or 
iionc.8  If  she  is  liable  on  the  obligation,  but  is  im- 
properly sued,  her  husband,  next  friend,  or  trustee 
not  being  joined,  she  must  set  up  her  coverture  by  a 
plea  in  abatement'  (which,  of  course,  must  be  put  in 
before  any  plea  in  bar 8),  or  if  the  defect  is  apparent  on 
the  pleadings  by  demurrer ;  •  and  in  the  absence  of 
such  plea  or  demurrer  the  defense  is  waived  and  can- 
not be  made  at  all.'"  It  is,  perhaps,  from  a  failure  to 
recognize  the  distinction  between  the  cases  wliere  tlie 
married  woman  is  liable  and  is  improperly  sued,  and 
the  cases  where  she  is  not  liable  at  all,  that  the  great 
diflference  of  opinion  as  to  the  effect  of  a  judgment 
against  her  has  arisen."  When  husband  and  wife  are 
jointly  sued  for  her  tort,  a  plea  of  coverture  is  not  sulii- 
cient,  she  must  plead  coverture,  and  the  duress  of  her 
nusband.i^  In  cases  where  the  plea  is  good  at  all,  it 
may  be  made  generally,  for  the  complaint  inust  set 
out  the  grounds  of  her  liability,'^  and  she  need  not 
negative  tliem."  In  some  States  she  must  sign  her 
plea  of  coverture  herself.'^  For  at  common  law  she 
could  not  a^jpear  by  attorney,'^  but  only  in  i^erson." 

1  Leslie  v.  Harlow,  IS  X.  H.  51S. 

2  Kennardr.  Sax,  3  Oreg.  26S,  2fio. 

3  Thomas  v.  Lowrv,  GO  111.  512,  515 ;   Painter  v.  Weatherford,  1 
(jreene,  97, 103. 

i    Kennard  v.  Sax,  3  Oreg.  263,  23fi. 


653  SUITS  AGAINST   MARRIED   WOJIEX.  §    456 

5  Griffith  v.  Clarke,  IS  Md.  457,  4G3  ;  ante,  HH  ;  pr>st,  i  457. 

6  McLean  v.  Grisvvoia,  22  111.  218,  220  ;  Thomas  v.  Lowrv,  60  111. 
512,  514. 

7  McLean  v.  GriswoUl,  22  111.  218,  219  ;  Painter  ?>.  Weatherford,  1 
Greene,  97,  10! ;  Tracy  v.  Keith.  IJ  Allen,  214,  215  ;  Powers  v.  Totten, 
42  X.  J.  L.  442,  445  ;  Kenuard  v.  Sax,  :>  Oreg.  2L'3,  265. 

8  Thomas  v.  Lowry,  CO  111.  5;2,  514. 

9  Long  V.  Dixon,  55  Ind.  :^.52,  354  ;  Gardner  v.  Moore,  2  Edw.  313  ; 
Hastings  v.  McKinley,  1  Smith,  K.  1).  273. 

10  Work  V.  Cowhlck,  81  111.  317,  319  ;  Emmett  v.  Yandes,  fiO  Ind. 
548,  549  ;  Long  v.  Dixon,  53  In<l.  352,  :5.M  ;  Van  Shrader  c.  Tavlor,  7  Mo. 
App.  361,  365  ;  Caldwell  v.  Brown,  43  Tex.  216,  217. 

11  Sen  post,  ?  457  ;  ante,  I  4U. 

12  Stockwell  V.  Thomas,  76  Ind.  .506,  508  ;  Burnett  t.  Nicholson,  86 
N.  C.  yrf,  lOo;  Clark  v.  Bayer,  32  Ohio  St.  290,  311 ;  ;;o  Am.  Kep.  593; 
ante,  i  66. 

13  Ante,  \  4.01,  n.  2. 

14  Tracy  r.  Keith,  11  Allen,  214,  21.5.  Compare  Huff  v.  "Wright,  39 
Ga.  41,  43,  44. 

15  Keddeslin  v.  Meyer,  2  Miles,  23.'>. 
IR    Post,  I  462. 

17    Patton  !'.  Stewart,  19  Ind.  2:;3,  237 ;  iwst,  I  462. 

\  456.  Plea  of  limitations  by  married  women.  —  When 
a  married  woman  is  sued,  wliellier  alone  or  not,  limita- 
tions can  in  general  be  pleaded  just  as  if  the  suit  were 
a^iainst  a  person  not  under  disability ;/  for  statutes  of 
limitation  do  not  usually  make  any  exception  as  to 
claims  against  married  Avomen.^  And  when  a  married 
woman  is  sued  after  coverture  on  an  antenuptial  debt, 
she  can  plead  limitations,  and  neither  her  promise  nor 
that  of  her  husband  made  during  coverture  can  be  set 
u])  against  her.^  But  as  to  family  supplies,  where  she 
and  her  husband  are  jointly  liable  bj^  statute,*  he  is 
her  agent  in  law,  and  his  promise  may  take  the  debt 
out  of  the  statute.^ 

1  Hodges  V.  Darden,  51  JIlss.  199,  201.  But  s?e  Hodgson  v.  Wil- 
liamson, Law  K.  i5  Ch.  Div.  87,  92. 

2  Wood  Limitations,  cli.  ID,  last  clause. 

3  Farrar  i'.  Bossey,  24  Vt.  S:),  92. 

4  Ante,  §  387. 

5  Lawrence  v.  Sinnamon,  24  Iowa,  80,  84;  PoUv  v.  AValker,  60 
Iowa,  G6,  63  ;  Cloptcn  v.  Matheny,  4S  Miss.  2So,  2.18. 


g   457  SUITS   AGAIXST   MARRIED   WOMEN.  654 

J  457.  Effect  of  judgment  against  a  married  woman.  —  If 
the  record  in  the  case  of  a  judgment  agaiast  a  luarried 
woman  disclose  the  fact  of  her  coverture,  a  cause  of 
action  on  which  a  married  woman  might  be  liable,' 
the  joinder  of  all  proper  parties,"^  and  that  the  married 
woman  lias  been  duly  summoned,*  and  if  the  subject- 
matter  of  the  suit  be  one  v.ithin  the  jiirisdicMon  of  the 
court,*  the  married  woman  is  bound  thereby  a.3  if 
unmarried.5  If  the  record  disclose  the  fact  of  covert- 
ure, but  not  grounds  on  whicii  a  married  woman 
might  be  liable,  the  judgment  is  void,  for  the  court  has 
no  jurisdiction  to  enter  it;*!  if,  though,  it  appears  tha„ 
the  ground.s  of  action  were  such  as  might  render  a 
married  woman  liable,  but  that  the  suit  was  not  i^rop- 
erly  brought,  the  defect  is  cured,  and  the  judgment  is 
valid."  If  the  record  do  no-  disclose  the  fact  of  covert- 
ure, the  married  woman  may  in  anj^  proceeding  show 
that  owing  to  her  coverture  she  was  not  liable  at  au,** 
but  she  cannot  show  that  she  was  liable  but  was  iui- 
properiy  sued.^  Some  cases  hold  more  broadly,  that 
in  any  case  where  the  court,  had  jurLsdiciion  of  ihe  par- 
ties (by  suminons  or  appearance  i* )  and  of  the  subject- 
matter,  the  judgment  is  valid,  and  tlie  wife  es.oppcd  ;  " 
bat  tlie  better  rule  is  that  a  married  woman  is  estopped 
only  when  the  judgment  is  valid,'-  and  that  a  judg- 
ment on  a  contract  is  itself  but  a  contract,  and  not 
binding  on  a  party  not  bound  by  the  contract'*  A 
void  judgment  may  be  enjoined  in  equitj'.''  For 
example,  a  personal  judgment  against  a  married 
woman  alone  is  valid,  if  the  cause  of  action  Avere  a  con- 
tract made  by  her  as  a  /emme  .so'e  tradsr ;  '^  but  a  per- 
sonal judgment  against  a  wife  for  the  balance  of  a 
mortgage  debt  is  not  valid  where  she  was  no.  person- 
ally bound  on  the  mortgage  notes  ;  *^  so  a  judgment  on 
a  void  note  was  held  absolutely  void'^  by  the  same 


655  SUITS  AGAINST  MABEIED  WOMEN.  I    457 

court  which  recognized  the  binding  force  of  a  judg- 
ment against  a  married  woman  by  default  on  a  tort 
committed  by  lier.^^  The  cases  cited  in  this  section, 
and  those  cited  in  tlie  sections  on  estoi^pel  by  record 
of  married  women, '*  process  against  married  women,^" 
and  tlie  plea  of  coverture  hj  married  vv'omen,^!  all  of 
which  bear  on  this  subject,  will  be  found  to  be  irrecon- 
cilable. This  section  attempts  to  give  credit  to  the  dif- 
ferent authorities  for  the  truth  whicli  they  respectively 
contain. 

1  Tracy  v.  Keith,  U  Allen,  214,  215.    See  ante,  ?  433. 

2  See  ante,  U  44SM51. 

3  ChUtlress  v.  Taylor,  33  Ala.  185,  137  ;  Vic-k  r.  Tope,  81  N.  C.  22, 
25.    See  ante,  i  45J. 

4  See  Carey  v.  Dixon,  51  Miss.  533,  GOO. 

5  Lewis  V.  Gu'.in,  63  Ga.  542,  54G  ;  Washburn  v.  Gougo,  61  Ga.  512  ; 
Emmett  r.  VancKs,  60  Ind.  548,  550 ;  Carey  v.  Dixoa,  51  Miss.  593,  59tf  ; 
Kobinson  v.  Stadecker,  oJ  Miss.  3  ;  Vosbough  v.  Brown,  U(i  Barb.  421, 
422 ;  Baxter  v.  Dear,  24  Tex.  17,  21. 

6  Emmett  r.  Yandes,  60  Ind.  548,  549,  550  ;  Carey  ?>.  Dixon,  51  :Miss. 
5 )3,  5;)9,  600 ;  Higgins  v.  Pelzer,  49  Mo.  152, 157 ;  Hccker  v.  Hoak,  88  Pa. 
St.  238,  242. 

7  Kennard  v.  Sax,  3  Oreg.  263,  265  ;  ante,  \  455. 

8  Griffith  v.  Clarke,  13  Md.  457,  463  ;  Morsa  v.  Toppan,  3  CJrav,  411, 
412.     Contra,  Bur^i  v.  Hill,  55  Ind.  412,  423 ;  injra,  w.  li. 

9  Long  V.  Dixon,  55  Ind.  352,  3*1 ;  ante,  {  i-'). 

10  Childress  r.  Tavlor,  ."3  Ala.  185, 1S7  ;  Emmett  v.  Yandes,  60  Ind. 
548,  54.)  ;  Vick  ?•.  Pope,  81  N.  C.  22,  25  ;  Keeker  v.  Hoak;  88  Pa.  St.  238, 
2^2  ;  ante,  \  452. 

11  See  Gambetto  v.  Brook,  41  Cal.  78,  82,  83  ;  AVagner  r.  Ewing  44 
I;id.  441,  443;  Bnrk  v.  Hill,  55  Ind.  4l!»,  421  ;  Van  Meter  v.  Wolf,  27 
Iowa,  341,  344  ;  2 !  Iowa,  3.17,  404  ;  19  Iowa,  130 ;  Goothrie  v.  Howard, 
32  Iowa,  54,  51! ;  Howell  v.  Hale,  5  Lea,  405,  410. 

12  Discussed  ante,  J  411. 

13  Griffith  v.  Chirk,  18  Md.  457,  463  ;  Morse  r.  Toppan,  3  CJray,  411, 
ill;  Gnllin  v.  Rogan,  52  Miss.  78,  81  ;  iligguis  v.  Pelzer,  4J  Mo.  152, 
157  ;  Freeman  Judgments,  i  149. 

14  Griffin  v.  Rogan,  52  Miss.  78, 81  ;  Bowman  ?•.  Kaufman, .%  La  An. 
1021.  An  I  land  sold  under  ic  may  be  recovered  in  ejectment:  Cald- 
weli  !'.  Walters,  IS  Pa.  St.  79,  83 ;  55  Am.  Dec.  592. 

15  Vosbrough  v.  Brown,  66  Barb.  421,  422. 

16  Anderson  v.  Reed,  11  Iowa,  177, 180  ;  Kirby  v.  Childs,  10  Kan. 
63  ),  644.  Aliter  if  her  property  is  liable  :  MciTiaughiin  )'.  O'Rouke,  12 
low  J,,  45J,  ,(;i ;  Rogers  v.  \Veii,  12  Wis.  664,  065. 

17  Griffith  v.  Clark,  13  Md.  457,  463. 


§§  458-459    SUITS  agaixst  married  women.  656 

18  Brown  v.  Kemper,  27  ild.  666, 672. 

19  Ante,  ?  411. 

20  Ante,  2  452. 

21  Ante,  §  453. 

j!  458.  Property  liable  on  judgment  against  a  married 
woman.  —  On  any  valid  general  judgment  against  hus- 
band and  wife  jointly,  execution  could  formerly  be 
issued  against  the  bodies  of  them  Ijotli,'  and  now  can 
be  issued  against  the  property  of  them  both,^  except  in 
such  cases  as  those  where  the  property  of  the  wife  is 
exempt  by  the  terms  of  some  statute  or  deed,^  or  where 
a  statute  expressly  provides  that  the  husband  shall  be 
only  a  formal  party.*  If  the  judgment  is  against  the 
wife  alone,  her  property  alone  is  liable  ; '"  if  the  wife  is 
not  a  party  to  the  suit,  her  property  is  not  liable  at  all.^ 
The  judgment  may  be  by  its  terms  a  lien  only  on  her 
statutory  separate  estate.^ 

1  Hall  r.  White,  27  Conn.  435 ;  Smith  v.  Ta.vlor,  11  Ga.  20,  23. 

2  Grav  v.  Thackcr,  4  Ala.  i:i6  ;  Zachary  v.  Ciideiilicad,  40  Ala.  23fi  ; 
Ellis  v.  ('lark,  l;(  Ark.  420  ;  liostic  v.  Love,  16  Cal.  n.i ;  Hennecker  r. 
.Scott,  4  (irt-enc,  1H5 ;  Travis «'.  Willis,  55  Miss.  5.57;  Howard  ?•.  Nortli, 
5  Tex.  2'iii  2!i<i ;  51  Xra.  Dec.  769  ;  Cole  v.  Hurt,  75  Va.  880  ;  Plainer  v. 
Patchiti,  1!)  Wis.  :«8. 

.3    Clark  v.  Valentine,  41  Ga.  143, 147. 

4  See  Md.  Act  1880,  ch.  253,  U  31,  32. 

5  Tills  is  self-evident. 

e  Phelps  V.  Morrison,  24  N.J.  Eq.  19.5,  199;  Bead  v.  .\llen,  58  Tex. 
182,  VH. 

7    See  Baldwin  v.  Kimmel,  16  Abb.  Pr.  353,  361. 

§  459.  Special  proceedings  against  married  women.  —  In 
some  States,  special  proceedings  against  niurried  women 
are  provided  for  by  statute,  as  formerly  in  Maryland, 
where  a  special  attachment  law  with  reference  to  mar- 
ried women  traders  existed.'  These  special  proceedings 
cannot  be  considered  in  this  volume. 

1  See  Md.  Act  1SB2,  oh.  29.'?,,?  8;  R.  C.  art.  51,  ?  23;  Odendh.il  v. 
Devlin,  48  Md.  444;  Mr\T.l  ?'.TavIor.  «  Md.  .5');  Crane  c.  Sej'niour,  3 
Md.  Ch.  .SSS  ;  Stewart  ^z  V.irey  11.  iz  W.  art.  65. 


657  MANAGKMENT   OF   SUITS.  I    460 

Article  IV.  —  Maxagement  of  Suits  of   Married 
Women. 

{  460.  The  powers  of  the  husband  over  the  suit. 

I  461.  The  wife's  separate  suit,  defense,  etc. 

{  462.  Married  women's  appointment  of  attorneys  at  law. 

{  463.  Compensation  of  taarried  women's  attornej's. 

g  460.  The  powers  of  a  husband  over  his  •wife's  suit.  —  At 
common  la\v,  it  must  be  i-emembured,  a  husband  Iiad 
the  absolute  right  to  reduce  his  wife's  choses  in  action 
to  possession,^  and  was  liable  with  her  on  all  her  con- 
tracts '^  and  for  all  her  torts ;  ^  and  as  her  legal  existence 
■was  merged  in  his,*  he  was  the  aciive  party  in  all  suits 
in  which  they  Avere  both  joined  ;  she  could  not  appoint 
an  attorney,^  or  release  errors, <=  or  confess  judgment,' 
she  could  only  appear  in  person  *  and  ijlead  her  covert- 
ure,9  if  that  would,  do  her  any  good.  So  that  in  all  cases 
in  which  the  common-law  procedure  has  not  been 
superseded,  the  husband  emploj-s  counsel  and  pleads 
and  manages  the  case  for  himself  and  his  wife;'*^  if 
they  are  plaintifis,  he  can  settle  or  dismiss  the  suit,'' 
and  is  alone  liable  for  the  costs ;  '^  if  they  are  de- 
fendants, he  maj'  allow  the  suit  to  go  by  default,'^  or 
suffer  judgment  to  be  entered  in  favor  of  the  plaintiff," 
and  so  long  as  there  is  no  collusion  between  him  and 
the  plaintitf,  tlie  wife  will  be  bound  by  his  acts.'^  But 
his  i-ight  to  act  for  his  wife  in  this  waj'  has  been  ques- 
tioned in  cases  where  she  was  insane.'^  At  common 
law,  if  a  husband  neglected  to  prosecute  his  wife's  rights 
of  action,  or  released  them,  his  loss  was  even  greater 
than  hers,  for  he  had  the  immediate  right  to  the  enjoy- 
ment of  them ; "  and  if  he  allowed  judgment  to  be 
obtained  on  her  antenuptial  contraci.,'**  or  tort,'*  or  on 
her  postnuptial  tort  '<'  (the  only  causes  of  action  on 
which  a  j'.:dgment  binding  on  her  property  could  be 


§    460  MANAGEMENT    OF    STTTS.  658 

obtained  -' ),  llic  judgment  was  against  liiniself  as  well ;  -'■' 
so  that  the  control  of  the  suit  could  be  safely  trusted  to 
his  charge.  But  as  his  said  control  of  his  wife's  suits 
grows  out  of  his  substantial  ownersliip  of  her  rights  of 
action,  and  his  equal  liability  on  her  obligations,^  it 
does  not  exist  where  his  said  rights  and  obligations  do 
not  exist,  and  disappears  as  they  are  removed.  He 
could  never,  for  example,  through  any  suit  of  his, 
estop  her  from  claiming  property  in  whicli  he  liad  no 
rights  by  making  her  a  co-complainant ;  -'  nor  could 
bo,  by  allowing  a  judgment  to  be  entered  a2;a;nst  them 
on  a  cause  of  action  on  whicli  she  was  not  liable,  deprive 
her  of  her  inheritance.^^  He  cannot  control  her  suits 
respecting  her  equitable  or  statutory  separate  estate, ^^ 
unless  by  her  consent  and  as  her  agent  in  fac;  •,'^''  nor  in 
such  cases  can  lie  admit  service  for  her.'^^  When  he  is 
a  mere  nominal  party,  he  is  entitled  to  all  her  defenses.^ 

1  Rico  V.  McReyiioias,  8  Lea,  3R,  40  ;  ante,  i  176. 

2  Proscott  V.  Fisher,  22  111.  SM,  n:).!  ;  ante,  i  G7. 

3  Jlarsliall  v.  Oalces,  51  Me.  yos,  303 ;  ante,  §  66, 

4  Barron,  24  Vt.  ::7.j,  398  ;  a7ite,  U  39,  331. 

5  Hubbard  v.  Burcus,  33  Md.  Ififi,  174  ;  post,  ?  462. 

6  Broelcenridge  v.  Coleman,  7  Mon.  B.  331,  334. 

7  Parton  r.  Stewart,  10  Ind.  233,  237  ;  First  ?'.  Garlin^hoiise,  53 
r.arb.  6.5  ;  Shalit-ross  v.  Smith,  81  Pa.  St.  132,  \6.i  ;  mile,  'fi  411,  451. 

8  P.itton  V.  Stewart,  1!)  Ind.  233,  237  ;  Fo,\  v.  Tookc,  34  INIo.  50 1,  510  ; 
Phillips  V.  Burr,  4  Duer,  113, 115  ;  Keddesliu  v.  Meyer,  2  Miles,  2i)o. 

0    Discussed  ante,  i  455. 

10  Foxwist  V.  Tremaine,  2  Saund.  212,  213  ;  Hayner  v.  Smith,  03  111. 
430,  432;  14  Am.  lii-p.  124;  Engli.sh  v.  Roche,  6  tnd.  62;  Ballard  r. 
Russell,  33  Me.  19fi,  l.i7  ;  54  Am.  Dec.  620;  Southworth  v.  PucKanl,  7 
Mass.  95,  96  ;  Wolf  v.  Banning,  3  Minn.  202,  204  ;  Benjamin  r.  Bart- 
lett,  3  Mo.  86,  87;  Beach,  2  Hill,  260;  Frazier  v.  Felton,  1  Hawks, 
Z'A,  237  ;  Vick  V.  PopL',  81  X.  C.  22,  26. 

11  Ballard  v.  Russell,  33  Me.  lOfi,  197  ;  54  Am.  Dec.  620  ;  Southworth 
V.  Packard,  7  Mass.  95,  96  ;  ante,  H  76,  182. 

12  Bellinger  v.  Thomson,  2  Rich.  Eq.  30  ;  ante,  J  437. 

13  Green  v.  Branton,  1  Dev.  Eq.  500,  .504. 

14  Vick  r.  Pope,  81  X.  0.22,26. 

15  Beach,  2  Hill,  260;  Green  t'.  Branton,  1  Dev.  Eq.  500,  504  ;  Vick 
V.  Pope,  Si  X.  C.  2.:,  20  ;  ante,  U  -Uli  457. 

16  Stephens  v.  Porter,  11  Ileisk.  341,  347. 


659  MANAGEMENT   OF   SUITS.  g   461 

17  Discussed  ante,  I  176. 

13  Prescott  v.  Fisher,  22  111.  .W,  303 ;  ante,  ?  G7. 

19  Allen  I'.  McCullough,  2  Heisli.  174,  i;;2  ;  5  Am.  Rej).  27  ;  «n/e,  J66. 

20  M;irshall  v.  Oakes,  51  Mg.  308,  303  ;  ante,  I  6G. 

21  Ante,  I  -153. 

22  Brown  v.  Kemper,  27  Md.  Gfir.,  07.: ;  ante.  U  eii,  67. 

23  See  ante,  §  'i:x 

24  Banner  v.  Berthold,  11  Mo.  App.  3.J1,  3(i0;  Worlv  v.  Doyle,  3 
Ind.  436. 

25  See  Worli  r.  Doyle,  3  Ind.  436. 

26  Kercliner  v.  Kf'nipton,47  3Id.  SPS,  5.SS  ;  Travis  v.  Willis,  5.5  Miss. 
557,  566  ;  Frank,  u.  Lilienfeld,  33  Gratt.  377,378. 

27  Keith,  26  Kan.  20.  36. 

28  Rhoodes  v.  Dolaney,  50  Ind.  468, 471. 

29  Floore  v.  Steigelmayer,  76  Ind.  479,  4S1. 

g  461.  Wife's  separate  suit,  defense,  etc.  —  Courts  of 
equity  have  always  recognized  the  separate  existence 
of  wives, 1  and  in  all  suit.s  in  which  husband  and  wife 
arc  co-complainants  or  co-defendants,  if  tliey  have  sepa- 
rate and  distinct  interests,  the  bill  or  answer  filed  by 
tlie  husband  for  both  is  regarded  as  prima  fade  i\\e  bill 
or  answer  of  the  husband  alone,  and  the  wife,  if  she  re- 
quests it,  is  allowed  to  proceed  separately.^  As  equita- 
ble separate  estate  is  out  of  the  control  of  the  husband,' 
so  are  -suits  relating  thereto  ;  and  the  wife  sues  by  her 
next  friend,  if  she  does  not  desire  to  join  her  husband, 
simply  because  the  question  of  her  liability  for  costs 
might  arise  if  she  sued  alone.*  If  she  does  sue  by  her 
husband  and  allows  him  to  act  for  her,  she  is  bound,* 
but  she  is  otherwise  not  bound  by  his  declarations,^ 
nor  are  his  statements  evidence  against  her,'  If  she 
files  her  separate  answer  by  permission  of  court,  she  is 
bound  by  it ;  *  her  answer  filed  without  permission  may 
be  taken  from  the  files,®  unless  the  court  allows  it  nunc 
pro  tunc.^"  As  a  general  rule,  under  the  statvites  she 
has  the  right  to  sue  and  be  sued,  independently  of  her 
husband  ;  ^^  and  just  so  far  as  her  choses  in  action  are 
made  her  statutory  separate  property  can  she  control 


I  462  MANAGEMENT   OF   SUITS.  660 

the  reduction  of  them  to  possession  ;  '^  and  just  so  far 
as  his  liability  for  her  torts  and  contracts  has  been 
removed  can  she  control  suits  against  her.^^ 

1  Rosenthal  v.  Mayhugh,  33  Ohio  St.  155, 163  ;  ayUe,  ??  38,  337. 

2  See  Kerchner  v.  Kcmpton,  47  Md.  56S,  ."»SS  ;  Warner  v.  Uove,  33 
Mel.  57.-1,  584;  Krone  v.  Linville,  31  Md.  i;«,  147;  Wolf  v.  Banning.  3 
Minn.  202,  204  ;  Travis  v.  Willis.  55  Miss.  557.  56(j  ;  Fo.\  c.  Tooke,  M  Mn. 
o(W,  510  ;  Collard  v.  Smith,  13  N.  J.  Kq.  43,  45  ;  Blackwell  v.  IJragtt.  7s 
Va.  .52a  ;  Frank  v.  Lilienfeld,  33  Gratt.  377,  376  ;  Uaadridge  v.  Miuge,  4 
Baud.  3J7. 

3  Discussed  ante,  U  137-216. 

4  Harper  v.  Whitehead,r,3  Ga.  13S,  144  ;  ante,  I  437. 

5  Keith,  26  Kan.  26,  .36. 

G    Danuer  r.  Berthold,  11  Mo.  App.  351,  360  ;  Infra,  n.  7. 

7  Worlc  V.  Doyle,  3  I:id.  436;  Kerchner  v.  Kempton,  47  Md.  .Vis. 
5Sj:  Warner  v.  Dove,  .3;j  Md.  579,  .i^  ;  Krone  r.  l^inville,  31  Md.  lis. 
147  :  Bird  v.  Davis,  14  N.  J.  JEq.  467,  479 ;  Frank  v.  liUeufeld,  33  Gratt. 
377,  378. 

8  Krone  v.  I^invillo,  31  Md.  1.3S,  147  ;  Kerchner  v.  Kempton,  17 
Md.  56S,  58J  ;  Wolf  )'.  Banning,  3  Minn.  202,  204. 

9  Wolf  V.  Banning,  3  Minn.  202,  204  ;  Collard  i-.  Smith,  13  X.  J.  Eq. 
43,  4.5. 

10  See  Krone  v.  Linville,  31  Md.  i:«,  147. 

11  See  ante,  U  440,  441,  450,^451. 

12  Becton  v.  Selleck,  4«  Ala.  226,  229  ;  Alderson  r.  Bell,  9  Cal.  315  ; 
Thomas  r.  Desmond,  (vi  (.'al.  42fi,  427;  Travis  i:  Willis,  .55  Mis,s.  557, 
.560.:  Dolloir  1".  C'urran,  59  Wis.  3.;2,  335  ;  post,  i  462  ;  ante,  H  440,  441,  460. 

13  Lowe  V.  Bedgate,  S.  C.  Ohio,  ^Tov.  18,  1884 ;  20  Cent.  L.  J.  76 ; 

IXjst,  i  462  ;  ante,  H  4.50,  451,  4I!0. 

^  462.  Appointment  of  attornsj  at  law  bj  married 
women.  —  At  common  law,  a  married  woman  could  no^ 
appoint  an  at;;orncy  a"  Lav,-;'  her  antenuptial  appoint- 
ment was  revoked  by  marriage  ;  ^  she  could  not  api^ear 
in  a  suit  by  attorney ;  ^  her  plea  or  answer  filed  by  an 
attorney  was  worthless;*  a  judgment  entered  against 
her  on  her  warrant  of  attorney  was  a  nullity ;  ^  her 
agreement  for  alimony  made  by  her  attorney  was  void.^ 
In  equitj'  and  under  statutes,  speaking  generally,  she 
ma\-  appoint  an  attorney  at  law  whenever  she  has 
interests  separate  from  her  husband,"  with  respect  to 
which  she  needs  legal  assistance  and  advice,  or  with 
resjicct  to  which  she  can  act  by  agent  generally.^    She 


661  JIANAGEMENT   OF   SUITS.  §   482 

can  appoint  an  attorney  to  take  care  of  litigation 
respecting  her  equitable  saparate  properly.^  Under 
statutes  expressly  authorizing  her  to  make  an  attorney 
or  to  contract  ganerally,  she  can  of  course  appoint  an 
attorney.^*  And  statutes  authorizing  her  to  sue  inde- 
pendently of  her  husband,!'  or  to  contract  witli  respect 
tv>  her  property,''^  or  securing  to  her  the  separate  enjoy- 
ment of  her  property,!^  by  implication,  give  her  the 
power  to  appoint  an  attorney  to  take  charge  of  such 
suit  or  such  lirojierty  ;  it  is  necessary  to  the  enjoyment 
of  rights  that  one  should  be  able  to  prosecute  and  de- 
fend them.i'  In  all  cases  where  she  can  appoint  an' 
attorney,  she  is  bound  by  his  acts  as  an  unmarried 
woman  would  bo  ;  i^  by  his  laches,'^  his  withdrawal  of 
pleas, i'^  his  settlement  or  dismissal  of  suit ;  '*  and  she  is 
also  bound  to  compensate  him.'^  A  statute,  however, 
which  gives  a  married  woman  the  i)ower  to  ap^joint  an 
attorney  does  not,  of  itself,  destroy  the  husband's  sub- 
stantial rights  in  her  choses  in  actionj^^ 

1  Griffith  V.  Clark,  18  Md.  464,  467  ;  Hubbarf^l  v.  Barcus,  38  Md.  156, 
174  ;  Kerchiier  r.  Kempton,  47  Md.  5liS,  5sj;  Wliitmore  v.  Dulano,  6 
X.  II.  54S,  54ii ;  First  x\  Girlinghouse,  hi  Barb.  GI5  ;  Piiillips  v.  IJurr, 
4  Duer,  113,  114  ;  post,  ?  463,  n.  30;  mite,  ?  406. 

2  "Wright,  2  liar.  (Del.)  49  ;  Templeton  v.  Cram,  5  Me.  417,  418. 

3  Fox  V.  Tooke,  34  Mo.  509,  510. 

4  Phillips  V.  Burr,  4  Duer,  113,  114;  Kiddeslin  v.  Meyer,  2  Miles, 
-..5.  ^ 

5  Henchman  v.  Roberts,  2  Har.  (Del.)  74  ;  Patton  v.  Stewart,  19 
1:kI.  233,  237  ;  Button  v.  Wilder,  6  Hill,  242  ;  First  v.  Garlinghouse,  53 
Harb.  015  ;  Shallcross  v.  Smitli.Sl  Pa.  St.  132,  ICJ  ;  Stevens  v.  Dubarry, 
Elinor,  37J. 

e    Wallingsford,  6  Har.  &  J.  485,  489. 

7  See  Kerchner  r.  Kempton,  47  Md.  588,  .!B8;  Travis  v.  Willis,  55 
Miss.  557,  566  ;  oiUe,  ?  461. 

8  Seea;i?e,  J  2  84-83,364. 

9  M^ijor  V.  Svmmes.  19  Ind.  117, 118, 119  ;  Porter  v.  Ilalej-,  55  Miss. 
66,  6n  ;  King  v.  Mittalberger,  50  Mo.  182, 185. 

10    See  Myers  v.  Griffis,  11  Rich.  560,  564. 

U  Stevens  r.  Reed,  112  Mass.  515,  517  ;  Porter  v.  Halcv,  55  Miss.  66, 
7(1 ;  30  Am.  Kep.  602  ;  Powers  v.  Totten,  42  N.  J.  L.  442,  445. 

12    Owen  V.  Cawley,  36  N.  Y.  600,  605  ;  ante,  I  372. 
H.  &  W.  — 56. 


?  463  MAXAGEME^TT  OF  SUITS.  662 

13  Major  v.  Symmes,  19  Iiid.  117,  120  ;  Porter  v.  Haley,  55  Miss.  66, 
69  ;  30  Am.  Rep.  5o:  ;  Powers  v.  Totten,  -12  A'.  J.  L.  44J,  +,o  ;  L,eouard  ?;. 
Kogan,  20  Wis.  &4U,  .>12  ;  ante,  J  373. 

14  Powers  r.  Totten,  42  N.  J.  I..  442,  445  ;  supra,  n.  in. 

15  See  Glover  r.  Moore,  00  Ga.  189,  192;  KeUii,  26  Kan.  26,  36  ;  Hol- 
lingsworth  v.  Harman,  83  N.  C.  153, 156  ;  Cayce  v.  Powell.  20  Tex.  767, 
771. 

16  Caycc  ;■.  Powell,  23  Tex.  767, 771. 

17  Glover  v.  Mooro,  GO  Ga.  189, 192. 

18  Ilollingsworth  v.  Harman,  83  N.  C.  153, 1C5 ;  supra  ii.  17 

19  Discussed  post,  I  403. 

20  Myers  v.  Griflls,  11  Klch.  560,  664. 

§  463.  Compensation  of  married  women's  attorneys. —  An 
attorney  wlio  lias  acted  on  behalf  of  a  married  woman 
may  look  for  his  fees,  (1)  to  her  husband,  or  (2)  to  her 
trustee  or  next  friend,  or  (3)  to  her  property  or  hersell 

1.  Her  husband's  liability.  Since  a  wife  always  sued 
and  was  sued  jointly  with  hor  husband  at  common 
law,^  and  sinco  he  employed  counsel  for  them  both,^ 
the  laaymont  of  the  fees  naturally  fell  upon  him.  But 
when  ho  by  his  conduct  made  it  necessary  for  her  to 
take  proceedings  against  him,  the  question  arose 
Avhether  he  was  not  liable  for  the  expenses  of  the  suit 
as  necessarie:..^  It  has  been  held  tliat  when  a  wife  sues 
out  a  peace  warrant  against  her 'husband,^  or  defends 
herself  agaiiiit  a  similar  proceeding  by  him,^  or  when 
she  sues  for  a  separate  maintenance,^  her  legal  expenses 
are  necessaries  for  which  her  husband  is  liable.  So 
her  expenses  in  bringing  or  defending  a  divorce  suit 
are  held  to  bo  necessaries  in  England,'  Georgia,^  lowa,^ 
Kan.sas,'*'  and  I.Iaryland,"  while  the  contrary  is  the  rule 
in  Alabama,'-'  Connecticut,"  Illinois,^*  Indiana,^^  Ken- 
tucky,'^ Massachusetts,"  New  Hampshire,'^  Ohio,'^ 
Tennessee,-"  and  Vermont.^'  liven  where  such  ex- 
penses may  bo  neces.saries  they  are  not  neces.sarily  so  ; 
there  must  be  a  reasonable  ground  for  bringing  the 
suit,  or  some  real  defense  in  resisting  it.^^    Besides,  the 


663  MAXAGEIiIENT   OF   SUITS.  §  463 

courts  provide  for  counsel  fees  in  divoroo  cases  under 
their  jurisdiction  to  award  alimony,  e;:e/'^ 

2.  Her  trustee^ s  or  next  friemPs  liabilitj.  The  trustee 
of  a  married  woman's  separate  property  may  employ 
an  attorney,  and  though  himself  personally'  bound  to 
comjjensate  him,-^  lie  may  repay  himself  out  of  the 
estate.-*  So  the  reason  for  the  existence  ox  a  next  friend 
is  that  there  may  bo  a  person  responsible  for  the  ex- 
penses of  the  suit ;  and  in  those  cases  where  a  married 
woman  sues  by  next  friend  he  is  liable  for  the  counsel 
fees.^ 

3.  Her  liability,  personal  arid  as  to  her  property.  At 
common  law,  as  a  general  rule,  a  married  vroman  could 
make  no  contract  at  all,^'  and  covild  not  appear  by 
attorney  in  a  suit,'^^  unless  he  were  appointed  by  her 
husband  ;  -^  and  therefore  her  contract  to  pay  counsel 
fees  was  absolutely  void,^"  and  she  could  not  even, 
according  to  the  better  settled  rule,  ratifj^  such  a  con- 
tract after  the  dissolution  of  her  marriago.^^  Eut  if  an 
attorney  collected  moneys  belonging  to  her,  he  could 
keep  a  reasonable  amount  thereof  as  compensation  for 
his  services,^-  though  ho  could  not  have  recovered  any- 
thing in  any  kind  of  suit  against  hcr.^a  She  could, 
however,  charge  her  equitable  separate  estate  in  equity 
for  foes,  just  as  she  could  charge  it  for  any  other  debt 
of  hers,^'  provided  she  complied  with  the  rule  prevail- 
ing in  the  particular  State  as  to  the  mode  in  which  the 
charge  had  to  be  made'*^  —  for  example,  that  the  con- 
tract was  made  with  exj^ress  reference  to  her  said  estate 
or  was  for  its  benefit,^^  and  provided  that  the  property 
sought  to  be  charged  was  property  over  which  she  had 
the  power  of  disposition."  Under  a  statuto  authorizing 
a  married  woman  to  contract  generally,  there  is  no 
reason  why  she  should  not  contract  for  counsel  fees  ;^^ 
and  when  she  is  authorized  to  contiact  with  respect  to 


g   463  MANAGEMENT   OF   SUITS.  664 

her  jjroiDerty,  a  contract  for  lejial  services  respecting 
the  same  would  bo  valid.^'  So  "would  a  similar  con- 
tract be  authorized  by  implication  bj^  a  statute  securing 
her  property  to  her  separate  use  and  control.*"  So  by 
implication,  a  statute  authorizing  her  to  sue  and  be 
sued  alone,  empowers  her  to  employ  counsel  to  repre- 
sent her.'^  Vvhetlier  when  she  may  employ  counsel 
she  bindfj  herself  personally  or  binds  only  her  pi'op- 
erty,  and  whether  her  obligation  is  to  be  enforced  in 
equity  or  at  law,  are  unsettled  questions,  contracts  for 
counsel  fees  being  governed  in  this  respect  by  the  same 
rules  as  other  contracts."  When  a  wife  is  liable  for 
family  expenses,  how  far  counsel  fees  are  a  family 
expense  must  depend  on  the  particular  circumstances 
of  the  case.*^ 

1  Porter  v.  Bank,  19  Vt.  410,  417  ;  ante,  ?5  431,  433,  443. 

2  Frazier  r.  Folton,  1  Hawks,  231,  237  ;  ante,  ?  4C0. 

3  See  ante,  U  SI,  95  ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  U  180,  aj3,  455. 

4  Shepherd  r.  Mackoul,  3  Camp.  32fi,  327  ;  Stewart  M.  A  D.  I  3S9. 
Or  for  restitution  of  conjugal  rights :  Wilson  v.  Ford,  Law  K.  3  Kx.  (hi. 

5  Warner  v.  Heiden,  28  Wis.  517,  519;  9  Am.  Eep.  515;  Stewart 
31.  &  D.  i  Sd'J. 

6  Williams  r.  Monroe,  13  Mon.  B.  514,  518. 

7  Ottawny  v.  Hamilton,  Law  R.  3  C.  P.  D.  3!):!,  307,  309  ;  Hooper,  33 
Law  J.  N.  S.  (  h.  300,  305  ;  2  DeGex,  J.  &  S.  91  ;  StOfken  v.  Pattrick,  29 
Law  T.  N.  S.  507  ;  Wilson  v.  Ford,  Law  R.  3  Ex.  63  ;  Rice  ».  Shepherd,  12 
Com.  B.  N.  S.  332,  333  ;  Brown  v.  Ackroyd,  5  El.  cfe  B.  819,  827,  829 ; 
25  Law  J.  Q.  B.  193 ;  34  Eng.  L.  &  Eq.  214,  217. 

8  Glenn  v.  Hill,  50  Ga.  94,  90 ;  Sprayberry  v.  Merk,  30  Ga.  81,  S2. 

9  Porter  I'.  Brig£;s,  38  Iowa,  IGG;  18  Am.  Rep.  27.  Compare  John- 
son V.  Williams,  3  Greene,  97,  99. 

19  Gossett  V.  Patten,  23  Kan.  UO,  342. 

11  Handy  v.  McCurley,  62  Md.  422  ;  19  Cent.  L.  J.  253,  254. 

12  Parsons  i\  Darrington,  32  Ala.  227,  255. 

13  Shelton  v,  Pendleton,  18  Conn.  417,  433  ;  Cooke  v.  Newell,  40 
Conn.  6J6,  598. 

14  Dow  V.  Eyster,  79  111.  2.54,  2.56. 

15  McCullongh  v.  Robinson,  2  Ind.  630. 

13    Williams  i'.  Monroe,  IS  Mon.  B.  514,  .517,  518. 
17    Coffin  V.  Durham,  8  Cush.  404,  405. 

IS  Morrison  r.  Holt,  42  N.  H.  478,  480  ;  Ray  v.  Adden.oO  N.  H.  82, 
84, 85  ;  y  Am.  Rep.  175. 


665  MANAGEMENT   OF   SUITS.  g   463 

19  Dorsoy  v.  Gooclenow,  Wright,  120. 

20  Thompson  3  Head,  527,  o29. 

21  Wing  v.  Ilurlburt,  15  Vt.  607,  615  ;  40  Am.  Dec.  6!)5. 

22  Handy  v.  McCurley,  62  MU.  422  ;  13  Cent.  L.  J.  2.5:!;  Brown  v 
Ackroyd,  cited  sii2)ra,  n   7. 

2:!  Dow  I  Eyster,  79  111.  2.54',  255  ;  Stewart  M.  &  D.  J  389. 

24  See  Gill  v.  Carmine,  55  Md.  3.39,  342. 

25  Noyes  v.  Blakeman,  3  Sand.  531,  544. 

26  See  Harper  v.  Whitehead,  33  Ga.  i:B,  144  ;  ante,  ?  437. 

27  Norris  )•.  Lantz   IS  Md.  260,  269  ;  ante,  U  ""3,  2;B. 

23  Phillips  !'.  Bun,  4  Duct,  113,  115  ;  ante,  {I  460,  462. 

23    Frazier  v.  Felton,  1  Hawks,  231,  237  ;  ante,  U  460,  461. 

30  See  Drais  ?>.  Hogan,  50  Cal.  121.  128  ;  Pierce  v.  Osman,  75  Ind.  2.59, 
260;  Putnam  r.  Tennvson,  50  Ind.  456  458;  Thomp.son  c.  Warren,  8 
Mon  B.  488,  431  ;  Porter  r.  Haley,  55  Miss.  66,  70 ;  30  Am.  Hep.  502  ; 
Musick  )'.  Dodson,  76  Mo.  624  625  ;  43  Am.  Rep.  7S0  ;  Wiiinply  r.  Giles, 
55  N.  H.  13  I,  143  ;  Wilson  v.  Burr,25  Wend.  380,  38J  ;  Davis 'c.  Buriiham, 
27  Vt.  562,  .")ii-<. 

31  Musick  V.  Dodson  76  Mo.  624,  625 ;  43  Am.  Rep.  7-10  ;  ante,  U  366, 
368. 

32  Thompson  v.  Yv'arren,  8  Mon.  B.  4SS,  491. 

33  See  Davis  v.  Burn  ham,  27  Vt.  562,  508. 

34  Ptirshing  v.  Falsh,  87  III.  260,  262  ;  Major  r.  Svmmes,  19  Ind 
117.  118,  119  :  Porter  v.  Hulev,  55  Miss.  66,  69;  30  Am.  Rep  50: ;  King  v. 
Mittalljerger,  50  Mo.  182,  185;  Owen  v.  Cawley,  42  Barb.  105,  118;  36 
N.  V.  600,  ti05  ;  Wilson  r.  Burr,  25  Wend.  386,  388  ;  Davis  v.  Buruham. 
27  Vt.  562,  568  ;  ante,  U  206,  207. 

35  Rules  stated  ante,  §  206. 

36  See  Major  v.  Symmos,  19  Ind.  117, 119  ;  cases  supra,  n.  34. 

37  Cozzens  v.  Whitney,  3  R.  I.  79,  83  ;  Pierce  v.  Osmaa,  75  Ind.  259, 
260;  ante,  'i  200. 

33    Sec  ante,  ?  371. 

39  See  Pfirshing  v.  Falsh,  87  HI.  260,  262  ;  Owen  v.  Cawley,  36  N.  Y. 
600,605  ;  supra,  ii.  34. 

40  Major  V.  Symmes,  19  Ind.  117,  118  ;  Porter  v.  Ilalev,  .55  Miss.  66, 
6  i;  .30  Am.  Rep.  502  ;  Powers ?\  Totten,  42  N.  J.  L.  442,  4i5  ;  Leonard  v. 
Rogan,  20  Wis.  540,  .542  ;  ante,  \  373. 

41  Stevens  v.  Reed,  112  Mas.s.  515,  517.  See  Glover  v.  Moore,  60  Ga. 
189,  192  ;  Powers  v  Totten,  42  N.  J.  L.  442,  445 ;  ante,  I  402. 

42  Compare  Jlajor  v.  Svmmes,  10  Ind.  117,  120,  with  Leonard  v. 
Rogan,  20  Wis.  5-;0,  542.    See  ante,  'i ).  211,  372  379,  453  ;  p:ist,  I  476. 

43  Fitzgerald  v.  McCarty,  55  Iowa,  702, 705 ;  ante,  \  3S7. 


g  464  SOUKCES  OF  CAPACITY.  666 

CHAPTER  XXVII. 

MARRIED    WOMEN   TRADERS. 

Art.  I.    Sources  op  Capacity  to  Trade,  ??  464-472. 
II.    Incidents  of  Capacity   to   Trade,  g§  473- 
481. 

Article  I. — Sources  op  Capacity  to  Trade. 

§  404.  Sources  of  capacity  to  trade,  generally. 

i  465.  Definitions  —  earnings,  trade,  business,  etc. 

i  4GG.  Capacity  when  liusband  is  civflly  dead,  etc. 

?  4G7.  Capacit.v  by  custom. 

i  468.  Capacity  in  equity. 

i  403.  Capacity  bj'  husband's  consent. 

i  470.  Capacity  under  statutes—  Separate  property  act3. 

'i  471,  Capacity  under  statutes  — Express  and  implied  authority. 

i  472.  Capacity  under  statutes —Special  requirements. 

§  464.  Sources  of  married  women's  capacity  to  trade, 
gonorally.  —  Tlio  use  of  the  words  "trade"  and  "mar- 
ried woman  trader"  has  been A^ague,  and  it  is  neces- 
sary, in  a  discussion  of  tliis  subject,  to  bear  in  mind  the 
dllFerent  elements  which  may  be  involved  in  the  capac- 
ity of  a  married  woman  to  trade. 

1.  At  common  law,  generally.  A  married  Avoman 
could  make  no  contract  whatever ;  i  ail  her  time  and 
labor  belonged  to  her  husband,^  as  did  all  the  present 
enjoyment  of  her  property- ;^  she  had,  in  fact,  no  legal 
existence  apart  from  her  husband;^  therefore  she 
could  not  trade  at  all.^  If  a  female  trader  married,  the 
trade  became  her  husband's,^  and  if  she  had  been  trad- 
ing as  partner,  the  partnership  was  dissolved  by  her 
marriage.' 

2.  Her  earnings.  As  a  married  woman  could  not 
contract  at  all  by  the  common  law,  she  could  not  enter 


667  SOCECES  OF  CArACITY.  2  464 

into  any  kind  of  engagement  or  eniiiloynient  on  lier 
own  account,  but  all  her  time,  services,  wages,  and 
earnings  of  every  kind  belonged  to  her  hus^band.^ 
Still  her  luisband  could  agree  that  she  should  have  her 
earnings,  just  as  he  could  invest  her  with  anj'  j^roperty 
of  his,  and  his  agreement  would  be  enforced  in  equity  ;  * 
his  agreement,  however,  gave  her  no  personal  capac- 
ity, but  only  the  right  to  collect  and  keei>  the  wages 
and  rewards  of  her  labors.'"  So  by  statute,  in  most 
States,  the  wifes  earnings  are  secured  to  her  separate 
use."  These  statutes  were  passed  to  protect  wives 
from  shiftless,  imjirovident,  and  dissipated  liu:-;bands,i'' 
and  were  in  form  the  earliest  of  the  statutes  relating  to 
the  trade  of  married  women, 

.3.  The  increase  of  her  separate  property.  Although 
at  common  law  all  the  interest,  profits,  rents,  and  in- 
crease of  a  married  woman's  i^roperty  vested  in  the 
husband  just  as  the  proi^ertj'  itself  did,  except  that  the 
rents  and  profits  of  real  estate  vested  in  him  as  person- 
alty,"' she  had  her  separate  estate  first  in  equity  and 
then  by  statute,  and  the  increase  of  such  estate  was 
also  separate  property  ; "  and  therefore  the  products  of 
all  investments  or  uses  of  her  separate  lirojierty  were 
her  separate  property,  thovigh  such  products  were 
jiartly  due  to  her  efibrts,  and  to  the  labor,  skill,  and 
knowledge  of  her  husband.''  In  a  sense,  therefore, 
she  could  trade  with  her  separate  property.'^ 

4.  Resulting  capacities.  Although  when  a  married 
woman's  earnings  or  property  are  secured  to  hr/  sepa- 
rate use,  as  above  stated,  the  profits  of  her  business  or 
trade  niay  be  her  sejDarate  property  also,''  her  personal 
incapacity  to  enter  into  trade  is  not  necessarily  re- 
moved;'^ for  equity  recognizes  her  capacities  only  in 
connection  with  her  property, '^  and  mere  property 
acts  do  not  affect  personal  status,-*'    So  that  to  trade  in 


g   464  SOURCES   OP  CAPACITY.  668 

the  wider  sense,  a  married  woman  must  either  have 
the  capacities  of  a/e^ume  sole,'^^  or  be  exjiressly  author- 
ized to  enter  into  business.^'' 

5.  Summary  of  sources.  So  that  a  married  woman 
may  be  found  on  her  own  account  earning  money, 
trading  or  in  business  (and  the  meaning  of  these  words 
must  be  specially  defined  ^^)  by  virtue  (1)  of  her  right 
to  hei  earnings,  depending  on  her  husband's  agree- 
ment -^  or  on  statute  ;  '^  or  (2)  of  her  ownership  of  equi- 
table -^  or  statutory  ^  separate  property ;  or  (3)  of  htr 
capacities  as  a  femme  sole,  due  to  the  peculiar  conduct 
of  her  husband  '-'*  or  to  statute ;  -^  or  (4)  of  her  capacities 
to  trade,  due  to  custom,^^  or  to  statute.^^  And  her 
jjowers,  riglits,  and  liabilities,  in  any  particular  case, 
depend  largel}'  upon  the  sources  whence  she  derives 
her  capacity  to  trade.^^ 

1  Noi-rls  V.  Lantz,  18  Mel.  260,  260  ;  ante,  U  S57,  368. 

2  Discussed  ante,  i  65. 

3  Discussed  ante,  'd  137,  141-183. 

4  Discussed  n(!^B,  ??  38,39,  331. 

5  Carev  v.  Burruss,  20  W.  Va.  571,  575 ;  43  Am,  Rep.  700.  See  Brad- 
street  I'.  Baer,  -II  Md.  19,  23  ;  >;itterville  v.  Barber,  52  Miss.  IGS,  171  • 
McKlnnon  i\  McDonald,  4  Jones  Eq.  1. 

6  Ashworth  v.  Outram,  Law  R.  5  Ch.  D.  923,  929. 

7  Alexander  v.  Morgan,  31  Ohio  St.  546,  550. 

8  Discussed  ante,  5  65. 

9  McLemore  r.  Pinkston,  31  Ala.  267,  269  ;  ante,  \l  65,  87. 

10  Uhrig  V.  Horstman,  8  Bush,  172, 177 ;  Stewart  M.  i-  D.  ?  ISl ;  post, 
J  469. 

11  Martin  v.  Robson,  65  111.  129,  li5 ;  16  Am.  Rep.  578  ;  ante,  i  65. 

12  Youngworth  v.  Jewell,  15  Xev.  45,  47. 

13  Discussed  ante,  U  137,  141-183. 

14  Discussed  ante,  U  200,  227. 

15  Wheeler  r.  Ra\  mond,  130  Mass.  247,  248, 249 ;  ante,  5?  87, 209, 227  ; 
post,  II  468,  470. 

16  See  Mitchell  v.  Sawyer,  21  Iowa,  582,  583  ;  post,  ??  468,  470. 

17  Mitchell  )•.  Sawver,  21  Iowa,  582,  583  ;  Hawkins  v.  Providence, 
119  Mass.  596,  59il  ;  20  Am.  Rep.  'ArU  ;  Silveus  )■.  Porter  74  Pa.  St.  448, 
451  ;  Meyers  i'.  Rahte,  46  Wis.  655,  659 ;  post,  U  468-470. 

18  Tuttle  V.  Hoag,  46  Mo.  38,  41 ;  2  Am.  Rep.  481 ;  post,  ??  468--170. 

19  Discussed  ante,  zl  206,  207,  211. 


639  youRCEs  of  capacity.  §  465 

20  Discussed  ante,  \l  15,  2:i7,  370. 

21  Carey  ;•.  Burruss,  20  W.  V;t.  571,  575  ;  pout,  ?  -ICS. 

22  Guttman  v.  Scuiinell,  7  Cal.  455,  -450  ;  po.it,  U  470-172. 

23  Seepo«^?465. 

24  Richardson  v.  Merrill,  32  Vt.  27,  36  ;  post,  W  45S,  4P3. 

25  Hawkins  v.  Providence,  ll'J  Mass.  5'Jfi,  599;  20  Am.  Rep.  353; 
p  «•?,  ■'(  471. 

26  Jarnian  v.  Woolloton,  3  Term,  618,  022  ;  post,  \  463. 

27  Mitchell  v.  Sawyer,  21  Iowa,  532,  583  ;  post,  \  470. 

28  Carey  v,  Burruss,  20  \V.  Va.  571,  575  ;  post,  I  405. 

21    See   Frances  v.  Dickel,  68  Ga.  255,  253  ;  Woodcock  v.  Reed,  5 
Allen,  207,  203  ;  post,  U  465,  471. 
;»    Petty  V.  Anderson,  2  Car.  &  P.  33,  39  ;  post,  I  467. 

31  Xash  V.  Mitchell,  71  N.  Y.  200,  203  ;  27  Am.  Rep.  33  ;  post,  I  471. 

32  Discassed  j:>ost ,  II  4~'j-lSl. 

2  435.  Definitions  —  earnings,  trade,  businoss,  etc. — 
Al'.'.iough  the  difference  between  earnings  and  increase 
of  property  is  clear,'  and  for  this  reason  married 
woman's  separate  proi^erty  acts  do  not  destroy  a  hus- 
band's rights  to  his  wife's  personal  services, ^  it  is  very 
hard  to  draw  any  line  between  earnings  and  the  profits 
of  trade.^  The  terms  used  in  the  books  dealing  with 
the  subject  of  married  women  traders  are  not  sharply 
defined,  but  a  few  definitions  may  be  given. 

1.  Earnings.  Earnings  mean  what  is  earned, 
gained,  or  merited  by  labor,  services,  or  performances  : 
wages  or  reward,- and  the  earnings  secured  to  a  mar- 
ried woman  by  a  statute  ai*e  not  confined  to  the  results 
of  manual  labor,  to  wages  for  wasliing  or  sewing,  but 
include  the  products  of  her  trade  also,^  if  it  is  carried  on 
witli  her  separate  property  as  capital;^  and  the  stock 
in  trade  of  a  married  woman  owned  at  the  time  of  her 
marriage,  or  afterwards  bouglit  with  her  earnings,  is 
included  in  the  term  "earnings."^ 

2.  Trade  and  business.  Trade  or  business  means  an 
employment  to  the  carrying  on  of  wliich  the  party 
devotes  a  considerable  portion  of  her  time,  skill,  and 
means,^  a  business  that  is  continuing  in  its   nature 


'i   465  SOURCES  OF  CAPACITY.  670 

and  embraces  many  transactions.^  Engaging  in  trade 
and  business  means  not  only  trading  in  a  commercial 
sense,  but  also  being  engaged  in  other  employments 
which  require  time,  labor,  and  skill  —  time,  attention, 
and  labor.io  Trading  means  engaging  in  a  business 
pursuit,  mechanical,  manufacturing,  or  commercial.'^ 
Thus,  though  a  single  transaction  may  be  a  business 
one,  it  does  not  make  the  party  a  trader ;  ^^  horse  deal- 
ing may  be  a  business,  but  a  woman  who  buys  or  sells 
a  single  horse  is  not  necessarily  in  that  business  ;'^  so 
farming  may  be  a  business,  but  employing  a  man  to 
work  on  one's  farm  does  not  make  one  a  farmer  by 
trade  ;  '*  renting  a  house  may  be  a  business  transaction 
and  for  the  purpose  of  a  business,''^  but  a  lease  of  rooms 
is  not  necessarily'  a  contract  by  a  trader ;  '^  so,  a  mar- 
ried woman's  receipt  and  disbursement  of  her  rents  and 
protits,  thougli  done  in  a  business  way,  does  not  consti- 
tute her  a  trader  ; ''  nor  is  she  a  trader  when  she  is  not 
acting  generally  Avith  the  public,  but  is  simj^ly  taking 
care  of  her  own  proijerty,'^  or  collecting  or  investing  -^ 
her  income.  Wlien  she  may  trade  slie  is  not  confined 
to  any  particular  trade  :  she  may  not  onlj^  engage  in 
washing,-'-  sewing,'^  dressmaking,-'  millinery,''^^in  keep- 
ing a  dairj',^  a  boarding-house,-'  a  grocery  or  provision 
store,''*  and  in  other  pursuits  specially  adapted  to  her 
sex,^  but  she  may  be  a  farmer,^*'  a  miller,^^  an  army 
sutter,^'^  a  saloon  keeper^^  or  tavern  keeper,^'  a  clotli- 
ier,3^  an  ironmonger,^^  she  may  Avork  a  mine  or  quarry," 
or  may  go  into  the  lumber  business  ;^^  though  if  lier 
trade  is  uusuited  to  her,  this  is  a  fact  to  be  considered 
if  her  husband's  ci'cditors  are  trying  to  show  that  the 
business  is  really  his.^*  So  she  may  engage  in  the  pro- 
fessions—  may  devote  her  talents  to  literature,  acting, 
singing ;  *"  and,  in  fact,  under  a  general  power  to  trade, 
may  follow  anv  legitimate  caliiug.^i 


671  SOURCES  OP  CAPACITY.  g  465 

3.  Separate  trade.  The  trade  of  a  married  woman 
is  usually  spoken  of  as  her  separate  trade;  the  word 
"separate"  refers  rather  to  her  status  than  to  the  mode 
in  which  she  shall  trade, ^'■^  and  it  does  not  mean  that 
she  shall  trade  alone,"  or  prevent  her  living  with  her 
husband  while  trading,"  or  allowing  him  to  join  in  the 
business.**  In  Massachusetts  and  Indiana  it  has,  how- 
ever, been  held  that  she  must  keep  her  business  sepa- 
rate from  her  husband,'^  and  that  their  joint  earnings 
are  his  propert3\'''  The  eriect  of  the  mingling  of  the 
wife's  with  the  husband's  p'-operty  has  already  been 
discussed.*^ 

1  See  Mitchell  v.  Sawyer,  21  Iowa,  582,  5S3 ;  ante,  I  -404. 

2  Glover  v.  Alcott,  U  Jlich.  4T0,  -ISO  ;  ante,  ?  05. 

3  See  Haitcht  v.  JlcVeasrh,  63  111.  624,  G2S  ;  Dayton  v.  Walsh,  -16 
Wis.  113,  r20  ;  32  Am.  Rep.  757. 

4  Dayton  v.  Walsh,  46  Wis.  113, 120  ;  32  Am.  Rep.  737. 

5  Haight  V.  McVeagh,  6:i  111.  624,  628. 

6  See  Duress  v.  Horneffer,  15  Wis.  195,  197  ;  2'>o.st,  U  464,  470,  471. 

7  Lovell  17.  Newton,  Law  R.  4  C.  P.  D.  7,  U,  12. 

8  Holmes,  40  Conn.  117, 119. 

9  Holmes,  40  Conn.  117, 119  ;  Proper  v.  Cobb,  10 1  ?Iass.  oS),  530. 

10  Nettervil'.e  v.  Barber,  52  Miss.  168,  171. 

11  Nasli  V.  Mitchell,  71  K.  V.  200,  203  ;  27  Am.  Rep.  38. 

12  Holmes,  40  Conn.  117,  119;  Nettervillen.  Barber, 52  Miss.  168, 171. 

13  Holmes,  40  Conn.  117,  120  ;  Proper  v.  Cobb,  104  Mass.  5S3,  590. 

14  Holmes,  40  Conn.  117,  120. 

15  Knowles  r.  JTuIl,  99  Mass.  562,  564. 

16  Holmes,  40  C/.)nn.  117, 119. 

17  Proper  v.  Cobb,  104  Mass.  589,  590  ;  Nash  v.  Mitchell,  71  X.  Y.  200, 
203  ;  27  Am.  Rep.  38. 

18  Proper  v.  Cobb,  104  Mass.  5.89,  .590. 

19  Nash  (:.  Mitchell,  71  N.  Y.  200,  203 ;  27  Am.  Rep.  38. 

20  Wheeler  v.  Raymond,  130  Mass.  247,  248,  249. 

21  Guttman  v.  Scannell,  7  Cal.  4.'i5, 459. 

22  Haight  t'.  McVeagh,  69  III.  624,  628. 

23  Haight  v.  McVeagh,  69  111.  624,  628. 

24  Jassov  V.  Delius,  65  111.  469,  471  ;  Tuttle  v.  Hoag,  4G  Mo.  38,  40  ;  2 
Am.  Kep.  481. 

25  Tutt'e  V.  Hoag,  46  Mo.  38,  40 ;  2  Am.  Rep.  481. 

26  Krouskop  v.  Shontz,  51  Wis.  204,  205;  207. 


I  466  SOURCES  OF   CAPACITY.  672 

27  Chapman  v.  Briggs.ll  Allen,  546, 547;  Dawes  v.  Rcdier,  125  Mass. 
421.  42:j  ;  Itarndeii  v.  Gould,  12U  ilass.  411,  412. 

2S  Haight  v.  McVeagh,  60  111.  624,  628  ;  Abbey  v.  Devo,  44  Barb.  374, 
382. 

29  Guttman  v.  Scanuell,  7  CaL  455,  459  ;  in/re.,  n.  41. 

30  Camden  v.  Mullen,  29  Cal.  5G4,  563;  .Snow  v.  Sheldon,  126  Mass. 
332,  RXi  ;  30  Am.  Eop.  6«4  ;  Ames  r.  Foster,  6  Allen,  136,  138  ;  Abbev  v. 
Devo,  44  Barb.  .'^74,  ;W-  ;  Krouskop  v.  Shnntz,  51  Wis.  2f)4,  205,  207.  But 
see  McDaniel  v.  Cornwall,  1  Hill  (S.  C.)  428,  429  ;  post,  i  467. 

31  Cooper  r.  Ham,  49  Ind.  393,  416. 

32  See  Swase.v  v.  Antram,  24  Ohio  St.  87,  9.5. 

33  Porter  r.  Gamba,  43  Cal.  105,  108  ;  Xispel  v.  Laparle,  74  III.  306,  307. 

34  SUveus  v.  Porter,  74  Pa.  St.  448,  449. 

35  Guttman  v.  Scannell,  7  Cal.  455,456;  Bellows  ]■.  Rosenthal,  31 
Ind.  116,  117. 

36  Abbey  v.  Deyo,  44  Barb.  .374,  a82. 

37  Netterv'ille  v.  Barber,  52  Miss.  IGS,  172. 

38  Netter\ille  i'.  Barber,  52  Miss.  168, 172. 

39  Guttman  r.  Scannell,  7  Cal.  455,  459. 

40  Dayton  v.  Walsh,  46  Wis.  113, 120  ;  32  Am.  Rep.  757. 

41  Guttman  c.  .Scannell,  7  Cal.  4.55,  4.59  ;  Haight  r.  McVeagh,  69  III. 
624,  628  ;  Chapman  v.  Briggs,  11  Allen,  .546,  547. 

42  Zimmerman  i:  Erhard,  58  How.  Pr.  11, 14. 

43  I'ost,  i  480.    But  see  Haas  v.  Shaw,  91  Ind.  :»4,  389,  336. 

44  Lovell  r.  Xewton,  Law  R.  4  C.  P.  D.  7, 12 ;  Xewbrlck  v.  Dugan, 
61  Ala.  251,  2.5;:  ;  Parker  v.  Simonds,  1  Allen,  2.58,  260. 

45  Ciuttman  c.  .Scannell,  7  Cal.  4.5-5,  4.59  ;  post,  2  480. 

46  Lord  V.  Parker,  3  Allen,  127, 129  ;  Haas  ;•.  Shaw, 91  Ind.  384, 389, 3:6. 

47  Hawkins  v.  Providence,  119  Mass.  596,599  ;  20  Am.  Rep.  353.  See 
ante,  U  S'.  '-'■>.  311. 

48  Ante,  a  129,  311. 

^  466.  Married  woman's  capacity  to  trade  when  a  femme 
sole  by  the  common  law.  —  Wlien  a  married  woman's  hus- 
band is  civilly  dead,  has  finally  abandoned  her,  etc., 
she  has  by  the  common  law  the  cai^acities  of  a  femme 
sole,^  and  may  trade  as  such.^  In  some  States  there  are 
statutes  to  the  .same  effect.'  How  far  her  husband's 
absence  enables  her  to  trade  in  his  place  has  already 
been  discussed.^ 

1  Worthington  v.  Cooke,  52  Md.  297,  307  ;  ante.  5?  .3.31-.^^5. 

2  Carey  v.  Burruss,  20  W.  Va.  571,  .575  ;  43  Am.  Rep.  7!K). 

3  Harmon  v.  Madden,  10  Bush,  664,  667 ;  Woodcock  v.  Reed,  5 
Allen,  207,  208. 

4  See  ante,  ?  90. 


673  SOURCES  OF  CAPACITY.  ??   437-468 

?  467.  Married  women's  capacity  to  trade  by  custom. — 
By  the  custom  of  London,  a  married  woman  -svho  carried 
on  a  trade  separate  and  apart  from  her  husband  had  to 
the  extent  of  such  trade  all  the  capacities  of  a  femine 
soleJ  Such  custoin  has  never  existed  in  the  United 
States,-  except  to  some  extent  in  Soutli  Carolina.^  The 
law  recognized  this  custom  not  for  the  sake  of  wives, 
but  to  encourage  trade  and  commerce,  and  therefore 
the  custom  did  not  applj',  for  example,  to  farming.* 
When  trading  under  such  a  custom  the  wife  could  be  a 
bankrupt ;  ^  but  lier  suits  were  generally  conducted 
jointly  with  her  husband,  for  conformity.® 

1  Pettv  V.  Anderson,  2  Car.  &  P.  3.S, ST  ;  Bparrl  r.  Webb, 2  Bos.  &  P 
93,  97;  LaVie  i-.  Phillips,  3  Burr.  177'"',  17«;?  ;  Nctterville  r.  Birber,  52 
Miss.  \m,  171 ;  Carev  v.  Burruss,  20  W.  Va.  571,  575  ;  4J  Am.  Kep.  7'JO  ; 
2  Briglit.  H.  &  W.  77. 

2  See  Jacobs  v.  Featherstone,  6  Watts  &  S.  345, 346. 

3  McDaniel  v.  Cornwall  1  Hill  rs.  C.I  42S,  429;  Newbiggin  v 
Pillano  2  Bay   163,  1&5  ;  Dial  v.  Neu£fer,  3  Rich.  78.  79. 

4  McDaniel  v.  Cornwall,  1  Hill  (S.  C.)  42S,  43L 

5  Lavie  v.  Phillips,  3  Burr.  1776, 17S.3.      • 

6  Beard  v.  Webb,  2  Bos.  &  P.  03,  97. 

I  468.  Married  woman's  capacity  to  trade  in  equity. — 
In  tliose  States  where  a  married  woman  is  a  femine  sole 
as  to  her  equitable  separate  estate,^  slie  may  use  the 
same  in  trade,  and  the  profits  of  such  trade  are  equita- 
ble separate  property  like^^^se  ;  ^  but  in  such  trade  she 
has  no  personal  capacities;*  equity  recognizes  her  sep- 
arate existence  only  with  respect  to  her  property,*  and 
her  contracts  made  in  the  course  of  her  trade  can  be 
collected  only  if  they  have  been  properly  charged  on 
said  proiaerty.* 

1  Discussed  ante.  |?  203,  205-207. 

2  Johnson  v.  Oallagrher,  3  DeOox,  F.  <fe  J.  4<M,  509;  Jarman  v. 
WooUoton,  3  Term,  618,  622  ;  Coiililiii  r.  Doul.  67  111.  355,  3.J7  ;  Jenkins 
V.  Flinn,  37  Ind.  349,  352*  Stevens  v.  Rnei],  112  Mass.  515;  Penn  v. 
Whitehead,  17  Gratt.  503,  512,  513  ;  Partridge  v.  Stocker,  36  Vt.  108 
115 ;  Carey  v.  Burruss,  20  W.  Va.  571,  579  ;  Todd  v.  Lee,  16  Wis.  430, 
483. 

H.  &  W.  — 57. 


§   469  SOURCES  OF  CAPACITY.  674 

S  Conklin  v.  Doul,  67  111.  355,  357  ;  Tuttle  v.  Houg,  46  Mo.  38,  41  ;  2 
Am.  Rep  4S1  ;  supra,  n.  2. 

•1    Discussed  ante,  U  205,  211. 

5    Todd  V.  Lee,  16  Wis.  -ISO,  483  ;  supra,  n.  2. 

§  469.  Marriod  woman's  capacity  to  trade  with  hus- 
band's consent.  —  A  husband  cannot,  by  his  consent, 
change  the  personal  status  of  his  wife,'  or  enable  her  to 
trade  with  the  caiiacilies,  rights,  and  liabilities  of  a/emine 
sole;^  but  he  may  allow  her  as  his  agent  to  engage  in 
business  and  give  her  the  profits,^  or  he  may  agree 
before  or  after  marriage  that  she  shall  keep  her  earn- 
ings or  carry  on  business  for  her  own  use,*  and  give 
her,  if  he  cliooses,  ihe  necessary  capital  to  start  with.' 
Any  such  gift®  of  eai-nings,  i)rofits,  or  property  to  her 
is  good  against  himself,'  and  his  heirs,  voluntary  as- 
signs, etc.,*  but  not  as  against  his  creditors,^  unleso  on 
valuable  consideration.'"  When  a  wife  thus  trades 
under  a  settlement  frona  her  husband,  she  trades  in 
equitj'  as  with  equitable  separate  property,"  the  busi- 
ness, profits,  etc  ,  are  the  liusband's  absolutely  at  law.'^ 
But  if  the  business  is  really  hers,  and  not  carried  on 
by  her  as  his  agent,  he  is  not  bound  for  his  debts.'^  If 
his  con.sent  to  her  carrying  on  business  is  by  mere  oral 
assent,  and  without  consideration,  though  he  cannot 
ask  back  profits  already  made  and  collected  by  her,'* 
he  can  revoke  his  consent,  and  claim  the  business  as 
his  own.'»  In  all  cases  where  she  carries  on  business 
bj'  his  mere  consent,  the  business  is  his,  and  he  is  liable 
for  its  debts,'"  and  may  claim  its  profits."  Whether 
the  business  is  his  or  hers  is  a  question  of  fact.'*  Her 
agenc3^  for  him  inaj'  be  proved  directly  or  indirectlj'.'* 
But  if  a  wife  has  engaged  in  business  without  authority 
of  law,  and  Avithout  her  husband's  assent,  he  cannot 
be  held  liable  for  its  debts,^"  nor  can  she  on  her  mere 
personal  contracts  ;  2'  so  if  all  the  credit  is  given  to  her, 


675  GOURCES   OF   CAPACITY.  §    469 

her  husband  is  not  liable,  whether  she  or  her  property 
is  liable  or  not.^  Under  the  statutes  usually,  the  hus- 
band's consent  is  not  necessary  to  enable  a  wife  to 
trade  ;  ^^  nor  does  his  mere  consent  involve  him.  in  the 
liabilities  of  the  business.^* 

1  Discussed  Stewart  M.  &.  D.  J  181 ;  ante,  ??  S48,  SoO. 

2  fhrig  V.  norstman,  8  Cush,  172, 177. 

3  Asliworth  V.  Outram,  Law  R.  5  Cli.  923,  931  ;  vji/m,  n.  7. 

4  Penn  v.  AVhitehead,  17  Gratt.  503,  512  ;  infi-a,  n.  7. 
6  Lockwoocl  V.  C'ulli!),  4  Robt.  120, 13G. 

6  Gift  from  husband  to  wife  :   Ante,  ?  127. 

7  Jarman  x\  WooUoton,  3  Term,  618,  fi22  ;  Ashworth  v.  Outram* 
Law  R.  5  Ch.  923,  931  ;  OKlfsbv  v.  Hull,  30  Ga.  3Sfi,  390;  Jenkins  r- 
Flinn,  37  Ind.  349,  352;  Conklin  r.  Doul,  67  111.  :«.J,  357  ;  Fisk  r.  Cus.i- 
man,  6  Cush.  20,  24  ;  Crnpsr'V  v.  McKinney,  30  Barb.  47,  57  ;  Samm'S 
r.  Mor,ani?hlln,  35  N.  Y.  647,  650;  Penn  i-.  Whitehead,  17  Gratt.  •S'l'i 
512  :  Ftifhirdson  v.  M'^rrill  32  Vt.  27.  36  ;  Carev  c.  Bnrrns.s  20  W.  Va. 
571  57J  ;  Stimson  v.  White,  20  Wis.  .562,  -563;  cases  ante,  \  6.5. 

8  Richardson  v.  Merrill,  .32  Vt.  27, 36  •  sujna,  n.  7 ;  ante,  ??  104,  127. 

9  Uhrig  V  Horstniin,  8  Bush,  172,  176  ;  Crops^y  ?•.  McKinnpy.  ^ 
Barb.  47,  57  ;  McKiunoa  v.  JVlcBonald,  4  Jones  Eq.  1, 6  ;  ante,  H  113-llS. 

10    Penn  v.  Whitehead,  17  Gratt.  503, 512  ;  supra,  n.  7  ;  €Uite,  U  104-108. 
U    Penn  v.  Whitehead,  17  Gratt,  503,  513  ;  ante,  2  4C3, 

12  Stimson  v.  White,  20  Wis.  562,  563. 

13  Tuttle  r.  Hoag,  4f!  :\ro.  .38,  41 ;  2  Am.  Rep.  4S1  ;  pa&t,  \  478. 

14  See  Green  v.  Poll.is  12  N.  J.  E'j.  2G7,  263;  Partridge  r.  Stocker, 
36  Vt.  108,  114  ;  ante,  'i  127. 

15  Conklin  v.  Doul,  67  III.  a5.5,  8.57  ;  Stimson  t>.  White,  20  Wis.  262, 
263. 

16  Barlow  v.  Bishop,  1  East,  432,  434  ;  Godfrf»v  ?>.  Brooks,  4  Har. 
(Del.)  :596  397  ;  Conklin  v.  Doul,  67  III.  35-5,  :i57  ;  Jenkins  i'.  Flinn,  37 
Ind.  :i49,  .3.52;  Cropsev  r.  McKinnev,  30  Barb.  47,  57  ;  Barton  v.  Beer 
&5  Barb.  78.  79;  Switzer  v.  Valentine,  4  Diier,  96,  99;  Swasev  t'  An- 
tram  24  Ohio  St.  87,  95  ;  Jacob.s  v.  Ffatherstone,  6  Watts  &  S.  347,  34'J  : 
Partridge  i'.  Stocker,  36  Vt.  108,  114  ;  ante,  ?  0-i ;  post,  ?  478. 

17  Switzer  7'.  Valentine,  4  Duer,  96,  99;  Stimson  v.  ■\^^l^te,  20  Wis. 
562,  S6.J ;  tmst.  i  4'8. 

18  Jarman  v.  Woolloton,  3  Term,  618,  622;  Glover  »•.  Alcott,  11 
Mich.  471,  479;  AbbLV  r.  Deyo,  44  N.  Y.  343;  Partridge  r.  Stocker. 
36  Vt.  108,  113  ;  ante,  ii  87.  93, 

19  Godfrey  v.  Broot^s,  5  Har.  (Del.)  396,  .397 ;  ante,  i  93. 

20  Happek  V  Hartby,  7  Baxt.  411,  414  ;  post,  ?  478, 

21  Tuttle  r.  Hoag,  46  Mo.  38,  41  ;  2  Am.  Rep.  481 ;  Conklin  v.  Doul, 
67  III.  3.55,  3.58, 

22  Jenkins  r.  Flinn,  37  Ind.  349,  3.52  ;  Tuttle  r,  Hoag,  46  Mo.  38,  42; 
2  Am.  Rep.  481 ;  ante,  \  8Q. 

23  See.  however.  Uhrig  v.  Horstman,  8  Bush,  172, 177. 

24  See  Haiglit  r.  McVeagU,  60  IlL  624,  62S ;  po&t^  I  473. 


I   470  SOURCES   OF   CAPACITY.  676 

I  470.  Married  women's  capacitj  to  trade  under  separate 
property  acts.  —  Married  women's  separate  propertj^  acts 
do  not,  by  implication,  destroy  the  husband's  coniiuon- 
law  riglit  to  his  wife's  earnings  ;  ^  but  they  do  usually, 
expressly  or  by  implication,  secure  to  the  wife  the 
natural  increase  of  her  property ;  -  and  since  such  in- 
crease belongs  to  her,  even  when  largely  due  to  her 
husband's  efforts,*  there  seems  to  be  no  reason  why 
her  own  services  to  it,  though  these  belonged  to  her 
husband,  should  injuriously  affect  her  rights.*  When 
a  married  woman  has  no  jjowers  by  statute  inde- 
pendent of  her  property,  her  dealings  with  her  stat- 
utory separate  i^roperty  in  the  way  of  trade  must 
be  subject  to  limitations  of  the  same  character  as 
those  wliich  control  her  trading  with  her  equitable 
separate  estate.^  She  cannot,  for  example,  under  such 
a  statute  carry  on  a  business  on  her  personal  credit.^ 
Her  right  to  manage  her  separate  estate  and  her 
right  to  trade  are  quite  distinct.'  A  contract  for 
furniture  to  be  used  in  a  boarding-house  which  i.s 
her  separate  pi'operty,*  or  for  horses  for  her  livery 
stable,*  may  not  be  valid  as  the  contracts  of  a  trader 
but  valid  as  contracts  with  I'elation  to  her  separate 
property.'" 

1  Spitz  V.  Mitchell,  94  U.  S.  5S0,  5S4  ;  ante,  ?  65. 

2  Stout  V.  Perry,  70  Ind.  501,  504  ;  ante,  §  227. 

3  Aldridge  v.  Muirliead,  101  V.  S.  397,  399  ;  ante,  ?  87. 

4  See  Mitchell  v.  Sawyer,  21  Iowa,  582,  .583. 

5  See  O'liiiilv  v.  Morris,  31  Ind.  Ill,  112  ;  Todd  v.  Lee,  Ifi  Wis.  4S0. 
483  ;  ante,  i'i  370,  371,  4fi8. 

«    Glover  t'Alcott,  11  Mich.  470,  480,485;  Uobinwoii  r.  Wallace,  3) 
Pa.  St.  13i 

7  Wheeler  v.  Ravmond,  130  Mass.  247,  24S  ;   Nash  v.  Mitchell,  71 
N.  Y.  199,  203  ;  27  Am'.  Kep.  38. 

8  Tillman  v.  Shackleton,  15  Mich.  447,  454  ;  Chapman  v.  Briggs,  11 
Allen,  547. 

9  Manderback  v.  Mock,  29  Pa.  St.  43,  47, 
10    Discussed  ante,  U  239,  372. 


677  SOXJRCE.S  OF  CAPACITY.  ??  471-472 

g  471.  Married  women's  capacity  to  trade  under  statutes 
referring  theroto.  —  A  statute  securing  to  a  married 
woman  her  earnings  or  the  products  of  her  skill  and 
industry,  by  implication,  enables  her  to  earn  money 
and  to  trade, ^  just  as  statutes  securing  to  married 
wonicn  property  acquired  by  purchase  enable  them 
to  purchase  on  credit ;  ^  thus  alone  are  such  statutes 
given  a  reasonable  meaning.  A  statute  enabling  mar- 
ried women  to  trade,  unless  it  contains  restricting  pro- 
visions,^ enables  them  to  trade  just  as  if  they  were 
sole,'  to  use  any  of  the  usual  means  of  trade,^  and  to 
engage  in  anj'  legitiriiate  calling."^  A  married  woman 
may  also  trade  under  statutes  giving  her  the  capacities 
of  a  feynme  sole  as  to  contracts.^ 

1  See  Haigbt  v.  McVeagh,  61  III.  624,  623  ;  Adams  v.  Honness,  G2 
Barb.  32fi,  :{36 ;  Krouskop  v.  fehontz,  51  Wis.  20-1,  21.5 ;  Dayton  v. 
Wtilsh,  46  Wis.  113, 120  ;  32  Am.  Rep.  7r>7. 

2  Tifimeyer  v.  Turnquist,  85  N.  Y.  616,  521 ;  39  Am.  Rep.  074  ;  ante, 
i  224. 

3  rost,  ?  471.    But  see  Bradstreet  v.  Baer,  41  Md.  in,  23. 

4  Bodine  v.  Killeeii,  -5:}  N.  Y.  03,  06  ;  pogt,  ??  47:J-481. 

5  Guttniaii  v.  Scannell,  7  Cal.  4.>5,  450  ;  post,  H  475,  480. 

6  Haight  v.  McVeagh,  GO  III.  G:4,  628  ;  ante,  i  465. 

7  See  ante,  ?  372, 

I  472.  Married  women's  capacities  to  trade  under  stat- 
utes containing  limitations.  —  Under  a  statute  enabling  a 
married  woman  to  trade  with  a  capital  of  one  thou- 
sand dollars  or  less,  and  creating  a  special  remedy 
against  her  property  for  her  trade  debts,  it  was  held 
that  she  had  no  powers  not  expresslj'  given  ;  that  tlv 
naming  of  one  mode  of  ti-ade  was  a  negation  of  al» 
other  modes  ;  and  that  she  could  not  trade  as  a  partner 
because  not  expressly  authorized.*  In  many  States  the 
statutes  require  a  wife  who  wishes  to  engage  in  trade 
to  comply  with  certain  prerequisites :  such  as  making 
a  declaration  of  record,"^  obtaining  a  license,^  or  decree 
of  court,*  and  such  requirements  must,  it  seems,  be 


g   472  SOURCES   OF   CAPACITY.  678 

complied  with  to  give  her  any  new  capacity.^  But  a 
statute  providing  that  her  husband  shall  not  manage 
her  business  has  for  its  solo  object  the  protection  of 
the  husband's  creditors,  and  when  no  question  in 
which  they  are  concerned  is  involved,  she  has  the 
same  capacities  to  trade  with  as  without  her  husband  ;^ 
and  the  same  would  seem  to  apj^ly  to  a  statute  i-equir- 
ing  her  to  trade  In  her  own  name.'  When  she  can  be 
declared  a  trader  only  when  her  husband  cannot  or 
refuses  to  supi^ort  her,  his  mere  temporary  sickness 
will  not  suffice.*  Nor  will  a  court  of  equity  with  a  dis- 
cretion decree  her  a  trader  when  she  would  thus  be 
enabled  to  commit  a  fraud.'  When  a  statute  requires 
"  a  married  woman  doing  business  on  her  separate 
account"  to  file  a  certificate,  this  does  not  apply  to 
married  w'omen  making  investments  of  their  separate 
proi>erty."'  A  married  woman  need  file  no  inventory 
of  her  business  unless  this  is  required  by  statute  ;  '^  nor 
need  she  have  separate  property  to  start  with.^''  But 
her  powers  are  fullj'^  discussed  elsewhere.^* 

1  Bradstreet  v.  Baer,  41  Md.  19,  2:5 ;  Cruzen  v.  McKiiig,  67  Md.  454, 
462  ;  puxi,  i  4aO. 

2  Adams  v.  Knowlton,  22  Cal.  283,  2S3  ;  Camden  v.  Mullen,  2!)  Cal. 
561,  oO!)  ;  Ke.tding;  /■.  Mullen,  iV  Cal.  101,  10(i ;  Wheeler  c.  Kayniond, 
lau  Mass.  247, 24S  ;  Snow  c.  Sheldon,  12ii  Mas.s.  332, 334 ;  30  Am.  Kep.  6W. 

3  Youngworth  ;•.  Jewell,  15  Nev.  45,  47. 

4  Martin. -tz  r.  Ward,  li)  Fla.  rsi,  8!i(;  :  Franklin,  1!)  Kv.  4!)7,  498; 
Moran.  1.'  iJiish,  »i:i:  Ihris  r.  Horstni.iii,  ^  Unsli.  172,  177;  King  v. 
Thompson,  t(7  Pa.  St.  ;ii;."i.  :;ns  ;  :;i(  Am.  liep.  oM  ;  ICLsev  c.  McDaniel,  "Jo 
Pa.  St.  472,  474  ;  OiTell  v.  Van  (iorder,  !»6  Pa   St.  ISO,  181. 

5  Uhrig  r.  Horstman,  8  Bush,  172.  177;  Elsey  v.  McDaniel,  95 
Pa.  St.  472,  474  ;  supra,  notes  2-4. 

6  Porter  v.  Gauiba,  43  Cal.  105,  109.  See  Youngworth  v.  Jewell,  15 
Nev.  45,  47. 

7  But  see  Christensen  v.  Stumpf,  16  La.  An.  50. 

8  King  V.  Thompson,  87  Pa.  St.  365,  363  ;  SO  Am.  Rep.  364. 

9  Moran,  12  Bush,  303. 

10  Wheeler  v.  Raymond,  130  Mass.  247,  24S  ;  ante,  I  470. 

11  Jarman  v.  WooUoton,  3Term,  618,  622. 

12  Tall  man  v.  Jones,  13  Kau.  438,  445  ;  post,  I  475. 
.     13  I-ost,  U  474,  475. 


G79  ESCIDEN'TS  OF  CAPACITY.  ?   473 


ArticLiE  II. —  Incidexts  op  Capacity  to  Trade. 

i  47i  How  fiar  dependent  0:1  sources  of  capacity. 

?  ^T-l.  Express  powers  under  statutes. 

g -175.  Implied  powers  under  statutes. 

i  -iia.  Rights  of  wife's  creditors. 

Z  47T.  Rights  of  husband's  creditors. 

?  478.  Rights  and  liabilities  of  husband. 

I  479.  Marriod  women  as  agents  in  trade. 

i  430.  Married  women  as  partners. 

J  481.  Married  women  as  incorporators,  stockholders,  etc. 

^  473.  Incidents  of  married  women's  trade,  how  far  de- 
pendent on  the  source  of  her  capacity.  —  The  status,  rights, 
and  liabilities  of  a  married  woman  trader  depend  very 
largely  on  the  source  of  her  capacitj^  to  trade.'  Gen- 
erally speaking,  when  she  can  trade  only  by  virtue  of 
ber  ownership  of  equitable  or  statutory  separate  estate, - 
she  cannot  trade  on  licr  personal  credit  or  act  as  a 
femine  sole,^  but  can  only  deal  with  the  property  so  that 
the  profits  will  enure  to  her  own  benefit,*  and  can  only 
render  it  liable  for  her  debts  by  charging  it,  contract- 
ing with  reference  to  it,  etc.,  her  contracts  being  valid 
not  on  account  of  her  being  a  trader,  but  Ix'eause  made 
in  such  a  way  or  for  such  a  purpose  as  tlie  law  allows.' 
Co  when  she  trades  simply  as  her  husband's  agent, 
though  she  binds  him  she  does  not  bind  lierself  per- 
sonally*—  she  may  have  the  profits  if  he  chooses  to  let 
ber  keep  them,'  but  he  and  the  business  are  liable  for 
tlie  debts  contracted  by  her  on  its  behalf.^  When,  how- 
ever, she  may  trade  personally,  by  virtue  of  her  hus- 
band's abandonment,  by  custom,  or  by  statute,  she  can 
trade  just  as  if  she  were  unmarried,^  unless,  of  course, 
the  statute  limits  her  capacity.'"  In  such  case  she,  for 
the  purposes  connected  with  her  business,  has  the 
status  of  a/emwe  *ci?c,"  the  fullest  rights  tothocnjoj'- 


II   474-475  INCIDENTS  OF  CAPACITY.  680 

inent  of  the  profits  of  the   business,'^  and  the  fullest 
liabilities  for  its  debta." 

1  Discussed  ante,  H  464-472. 

2  Ante,  U  468,  470. 

3  O'liailv  V.  Morris,  31  Ind.  Ill,  112;  Glover  v.  Alcott,  11  Mich. 
470,  4S5 ;  Kobinsoii  v.  Wallace,  39  Pa.  St.  133. 

4  Carey  »'.  Burruss,  20  W.  Va.  571,  579  ;  Mitchell  i'.  Sawyer,  21 
Iowa,  582,  583. 

5  See  Tillman  v.  Shacltletoh,  15  Mich.  470,  480,  48.5 ;  Chapman  r. 
Briggs,  II  Allf  n,  547 ;  Manderbaclt  v.  Mocli,  2a  Pa.  St.  43,  47  ;  Toild  v. 
Leu,  10  Wis.  4S0,  483. 

0  See  Conlilin  v.  Doul,  67  111.  3.55,  357  ;  Tuttle  v.  Hoag,  40 Mo.  38,  41  ; 
2  Am.  Kep.  481 ;  ante.  H  :««■  36:! ;  post,  B  479,  483. 

7  See  Penn  v.  Whitehead,  17  Gratt.  5a3,  512;  Conivli)i  v.  Doul,  67 
III.  355,  3.57  ;  ante,  l  469. 

8  Partridge  v.  Steelier,  36  Vt.  1C8, 114  ;  ante,  ?  469  ;  post,  i  478. 

9  Abbey  v.  Deyo,  44  Barb.  374,  381 ;  post,  U  4"4,  475. 

10  Young  V.  Gorl,  13  Abb.  Pr.  13, 14,  ii. ;  post,  i  475. 

11  ^ee  post,  I  475. 

12  Dayton  r.  Walsh,  47  Wis.  113, 120 ;  .32  Xm.  Rep.  757  ;  post,  ?  475. 

13  Wallace  v.  Rowley,  91  Ind.  105,  109  ;  jxist,  ?  476. 

1  474.  Eights  and  liabilities  of  married  women  traders 
Tinder  the  express  torms  of  the  statutes.  —  Most  of  the  stat- 
utes as  to  married  women  traders  expressly  provide 
that  they  shall  trade  as  if  sole,  and  under  such  statutes 
no  special  questions  seem  to  have  arisen ;  ^  the  main 
questions  are  as  to  the  implied  powers  of  married 
women  traders.'^  In  one  case  it  was  held  that  the  nam- 
ing of  certain  powers  of  trade  was  a  negation  of  all 
other  powers  ;3  but  the  weight  of  authority  seems  to  be 
to  the  contrarj'.* 

1  See  Berry  v.  Zeiss,  32  L'p.  Can.  C.  P.  231,  239  ;  Porter  v.  Gamba, 
43  Cal.  105,  109  ;  Martinetz  v.  Ward,  19  Fla.  175,  187,  188;  Kingman  v. 
Fraiili,  19  Cent.  L.  J.  470,  471  :  Williams  v.  Lord,  75  Va.  390,  398,  399  ; 
Krouskop  V.  Shontz,  51  Wis.  204,  217. 

2  Discussed  post,  I  475. 

3  Bradstreet  v.  Baer,  41  Md.  19,  23  ;  Cruzen  v.  McKaig,  57  Md.  454, 
462. 

4  Seepo««,  ??4"5,  480. 

I  475.  Implied  powers  under  statutes  of  married  women 
traders.  —  Under  statutes  enabling  a  married  woman  to 


681  INCIDENTS   OF   CAPACITY.  §   475 

trade  and  not  limiting  her  capacities,  she  may  trade  pre- 
cisely as  if  unmarried;  she  is,  as  to  lier  business,  a 
femme  sole,  and  may  dc  all  things  incidental  to  trading  in 
general,  and  all  things  usual  and  proper  in  the  particu- 
lar trade  in  which  she  is  engaged.^  The  object  of  these 
statutes  is  not  only  to  do  justice  to  ■wives, ^  but  also  to 
encourage  trade.*  Thus,  she  may  engage  in  any  legiti- 
mate calling,'  She  may  conduct  the  business  person- 
ally or  by  agent ;  she  may  have  her  salesmen  and 
clerks;^  she  may  be  a  partner,  silent  or  active;*  and 
she  may,  unless  this  is  i^rohibited  by  statute,  have  her 
husband  as  her  agent,'  or  be  a  partner  Avith  him,  though 
this  IS  in  some  States  denied.^  She  need  not,  unless  the 
•statute  so  provides,*  have  separate  projierty  to  begin 
with  ;  i**  she  may  start  out  on  credit,'^  or  use  property- 
given  her  by  her  husband/-'  though  in  the  latter  case 
his  creditors  may  have  riglits.'*  Tlie  capital "  and  stock 
in  trade  i»  of  her  business,  as  well  as  the  profits,'*  are 
entirely  hers  ;  for  instance,  tlie  bills  due  her  as  a  board- 
ing-house keeper  ,  '^  and  such  proi^erty,  though  in  the 
possession  of  herand  her  husband,  is  in  her  possession, 
the  jjossession  relating  to  the  title.'*  She  may  on  credit 
purchase  goods  for  her  trade  ;  '*  or  buy  land  ^^  or  seed  •' 
for  farming  jjurposes  ;  or  rent  a  store  ;  ^-  or  contract  for 
her  services;^  or  contract  for  working  a  quarry  —  for 
t]ie  labor  and  mules  ;  ^'  she  may  transfer  a  note  received 
in  the  course  of  trade  ;  ^^  she  may  even  sell  out  her  busi- 
ness, and  agree  not  to  use  the  same  name  again. 2*  She 
is  personally  liable  on  all  contracts  which  she  executes 
in  the  conduct  of  her  business,^'  even  as  indorser  of  a 
note  ;  "^  she  is  liable  for  the  frauds  of  her  employees, -^ 
and  is  estopped  as  if  sole  from  denying  their  right  to 
represent  her;*"  she  is  liable  for  goods  consigned  to 
her.*'  She  may  sue  and  be  sued  alone  and  at  law,*' 
except,  perhaps,  as  to  suits  with  her  husband;^*  and  a 


I   475  INCIDENTS    OF    CAPACITY.  682 

general  judgnieut  may  be  obtained  against  her.^*  The 
question  whether  a  particular  transaction  of  hers  was 
in  tlie  coarse  of  Iier  business  is  one  of  lact.^^  In  suing, 
sho  must  allege  and  prove  this  ;  ^"^  and  when  she  is  sued, 
the  plaintiff  must  allege  the  grounds  of  the  liability ,=^ 
must  allege  and  prove  affirmatively  that  she  was  en- 
gaged in  business,  and  tliat  the  particular  transaction 
was  connected  with  such  business.^*  Sho  may  make  a 
deed  for  the  benefit  of  creditors,^'*  and  take  the  benefit 
of  the  Insolvent  laws.'** 

1  Young  r.  Gorl,  13  Abb.  Pr.  i:J,  U,  n.  See  Berry  v.  Zei&s,  32 
rp.  Can.  V.  P.  2;il,  239;  'iiieber  v.  Stuv^r,  oU  Ar.c.  7i7,  7.^0;  Cam- 
di'ii  V.  Mullen,  21  Cul.  564,  o&O  ;  I^ortcr  v.Ua;ubu,4:5  Cal.  1U.>,  UU  ;  Rock- 
well %).  ClarU,44  Conn.  5"A,  5r.6 ;  Martinetz  v.  \\uia,  IJ  KUi.  17.3,187; 
Xispel  1'.  Lupa:Ie,  74  ill.  AAi.  ■  OS ;  ^^';uU^ce  v.  Kowley,  91  InU.  .=i8(>,  o8J  ; 
T.illman  r.  Jon^s,  13  Kun.  4-.s,  ^l.i  ;  JiitehcU  ■!■.  .Sawyer,  21  Iowa,  582, 
5>3;  .Siiow  1'.  Sh  ia<in,  126  J[..:,s.  :.:.2, 3:4  ;  ;0  Am.  K^p.  (»4  ;  Kaowlesr. 
Uull,9jJIass.  5(i2,  .">i;4;  Rankin  c.  West, 25  j;icli.  l:i.">,'.:ul ;  Aliens.  Job:> 
son,  48  JNliss.  413, 41S  ;  NettervUle  v.  Barber,  52  Wiss.  IGS,  172  ;  Young- 
worth  V.  Jewell,  15  Nev.  45,  47  ;  Wheaton  v.  Phillips,  12  N.  J.  l-q.  2:;l, 
223  ;  Barton  v,  licer,  00  Barb.  78, 80  ;  J;;;v.cs  i'.  T.iv lur, 43  Barb.  5;,0,  V.l ; 
Abbey  V.  Devo,44  Barb.  374,381  ;  Adams  v.  1  Ion n ess,  Ci  Barb.  326,  3:(i; 
Woocf  V.  Sancliey,  3  Ualv,  li)7, 108  ;  N\.sb  r.  Mitchell,  71  N.  V.  2U0, 20:; ; 
24  Am.  Rep.  0,8  ;  Frecking  v.  Rolanft,  53  N.  Y.  422,  425 ;  BoUine  v.  KJl- 
leen,  Hi  N.  Y.  i«,  ;,6  ;  Baum  v.  Mullen,  47  N.  Y.  577,  57l»  ;  Samir.is  v. 
McLaughlin,  35  N.  Y.  647,  650  ;  Ki:iKiuan  v.  Frank,  ]!»  Cent.  I;,  J.  470, 
471 ;  Morgan  r.  PorUamus,;.GOUio  St.  517  ;  Silveusi'.  Porter, 74  Pa.  f^£. 
418,  451 ;  Willhaus  v.  Ludecus,  5  i;ich.  326,  32'J  ;  Kowbiggin  v.  Pillans, 
2  Bay,  1S2, 1G5  ;  V.'illiauis  v.  I-ord,  75  Va.  3;iO,  308  ;  Krouskop  v.  8bontz, 
51  Wis.  204,  217  ;  Baytoa  v.  Walsh,  47  Yvis,  113, 120  ;  32  Am.  Rep.  757. 

2  Youngworth  ?'.  Jewell,  15  Xev.  45,  47. 

a    See  McDaniel  v.  Cornwall,  1  Ilili  (S.  C.)  428, 429. 

4  Guttman  v.  Scannell,  7  Cal.  455,  459  ;  ante,  |  4G.\. 

5  Guttman  v.  Scannell,"  Cal.  455,  4o,> ;  Abbey  v.  Deyo, 44  Barb. 
374,381.    Consult  «H?e,  iH4-83. 

6  Parshall  v.  Fisher,  43  Mich.  520,  534 ;  post,  ?  430. 

7  Guttman  %\  Scannell,  7  Cal.  455,  45:i;  Bellows  r.  Rosentlial,  31 
Intl.  116;  Rankin  r.  West,  25  Mich.  195,  200;  LockwooU  f.  Culiin,  4 
Robt.  120,  136  ;  unte,  U  84-«j. 

8  Zimmerman  v.  Erhard,  53  How.  Pr.  H,  13 ;  past,  i  ■i'^. 

9  Franklin,  7j  Ky.  407,  403. 

10  Tallman  v.  Jonest,  13  Kan.  438,  445;  Dayton  t>.  Walsh,  47  Wis. 
113,  120  ;  32  Am.  Rei).  7o7.    See  ante,  U  4liS,  470. 

11  Young  V,  Gori,  13  Abb.  Pr.  13, 14,  n, ;  miprtc,  n.  1, 

12  Lockwoofi  V.  Cullin,  4  Robt.  120, 130. 

13  See  Penn  v.  Whitehead,  12  Grutt.  74  ;  ante,  ??  113-118  ;  pr^t,  i  477. 

14  James  v.  Taylor,  43  Barb.  5::0,  531  ;  atile,  |J  408,  470. 

15  Lovell  V,  Isewtoa,  Law  R.  4  C.  P.  I).  7, 12  ;  ante,  U  468,  470. 


I 


683  INCIDENTS   OF   CArACITY.  2   ^"^^ 

16  Mitchell  v.  Sawver,  21  Iowa,  332,  583 ;  Sammis  v.  ?Ter^augMi:i,  35 
X.  Y.  frlT,  6oO  ;  Siiveus  r.  Porter,  71  Pa.  ^^t.  ^^S.  -l')!  ;  Jleycrs  r.  Itahte, 
4ti  Wis.  8.>i,  65);  Davtoii  v.  WaUli,  47  Wis.  lia,  l.:0;  32  Am.  Hop.  757; 
ante.  U  -0*,  -'-7,  408,  470. 

17  See  Dawos  ik  Itodier,  12.5  Mass.  421,  42n. 

IS    Nowbrick  v.  Dugan,  61  Ala.  2.51,  253  ;  nnle,  U  l'-'J-12l. 
n    Nisjiel  I'.  Laparle,  74  111.  ^06,  "C8  ;  Freckiiig  v.  Holland,  .53  N.  Y. 
422,  425. 

20  Camden  t'.  Mullen,  2Cl  Cal.  5G4,  505  ;  Chapman  v.  Foster,  6  ^Ulen, 
138.  i;«. 

21  Camden  v.  Mullen,  23  Cal.  5(H,  .566. 

22  Knowles  v.  Hull,  OJ  Mass.  .5C2,  534. 
2.J    Adams  v.  Ilonness,  62  Barb.  323,  ."",3. 
2-;    Nctterville  v.  Barber,  52  Miss.  IC'3,  172. 

25  Itociiwell  V.  Clarlc,  44  Conn.  bH,  5:6. 

26  Morgan  i<.  Perhamus,  36  Ohio  St.  517. 

27  Barton  r.  Beer,  35  Barb.  7S,  80.  Soo  Triobor  r.  Stover,  30  Ark. 
727,  730 ;  Nispul  v.  Laparle,  74  111.  306,  COJ  ;  sti2}ra,  n.  1. 

2-!    Willhaus  J>.  Ludecus,  5  Rich.  326,  327. 
2;)    Baum  V.  Mullen,  47  X.  Y.  577,  573. 

30  Bodine  v.  Killeen,  53  N.  Y.  93,  96  ;  ante,  ?  414. 

31  Nexvblggin  i>.  Pillans,  2  Bay,  162, 105. 

32  Trieber  v.  Stover,  30  Ark.  727,  730  ;  Rockwell  v.  Clark,  44  Conn. 
.534,  536,  Wheaton  v.  Phillips,  12  N.  J.  Kq.  221,223  ;  Nash  v.  Mitchell, 
71  N.  Y.  200,  203  ;  27  Am.  Rep.  38  ;  Meyers  v.  Rahte,  45  AVis.  655,  65'J  ; 
ante,  'ti  441,  451. 

3s  Trieber  v.  Stover,  30  Ark.  727, 730 ;  ante,  \\  54,  4:3. 

34  Porter  v.  Gamba,  43  Cal.  105,  KK) ;  ante,  5?  4.53,  453. 

35  Camden  v.  Mullen,  29  Cal.  564,  567. 

36  Smith  V.  New  England,  45  Conn.  415,  420  ;  ante,  |  431. 

37  See  ante,  %  431,  n.  2. 

3S  Reading  v.  Mullen,  47  N.  Y.  .577.  .571 ;  AVood  v.  Sanchoy,  3  Daly, 
197,  198  ;  Nash  v.  Mitchell,  71  N.  Y.  200,  203  ;  27  Am.  Rep.  38. 

3!)    Shumann  v.  Peddlcord,  50  Md.  500. 

40  See  Holland,  Law  R.  9  Ch.  .307,  311;  Kinkoad,  3  Biss.  405,4:0. 
But  see  Reiief  v.  Schmidt,  .55  Md.  97 ;  ante,  U  16,  36J. 

?  476.  The  rights  of  the  wife's  creditors.  —  The  bu.si- 
ness  creditors  of  a  married  Avomau  trader  have,  under 
the  statutes  generally,  the  same  riglits  a.s  if  she  wore 
sole  ; '  they  may  sue  her  alone, ^  and  obtain  a  general 
judgment  again.st  lier.*  If  she  is  a  partner,  all  Iho 
partners  must  be  joined.*  The  husband  cannot  set  up 
against  them  any  rights  tliat  lie  miglit  have  against 
her  111  property'  lie  has  suti'ered  her  to  use  in  tlie  busi- 


J   477  INCIDENTS   OF   CAPACITY.  684 

iicss.*  If  she  is  not  trading  with  a  j^ersonal  capacity, 
but  simjjly  by  virtue  of  her  ownership  of  separate 
property,  such  creditors  have  generaUy  no  rights  in 
personam  against  lier."  In  some  States  her  creditors 
are  given  special  remedies^  Wlien  she  acts  simply  as 
her  husband's  agent,  her  creditors  are  really  his  credit- 
ors, and  the  business  is  really  his  business.^  Her 
creditors  other  tlian  tliose  of  her  business  can  proceed 
against  her  business  onlj^  as  they  could  against  her 
other  separate  property.^ 

1  Nlspel  V.  Laparle,  74  111.  306,  3i8  ;  ante,  i  475,  n.  1. 

2  Meyers  v.  Rahte,  46  Wis.  655,  659  ;  ante,  I  475,  n.  32. 

3  Porter  v.  Gamba,  43  Cal.  105,  109  ;  ante,  H  453, 458 

4  Westphal  v.  Heuvoy,  49  Iowa,  542,  543. 

5  Green  v.  Pallas,  12  N.  J.  Eq.  267,  26S ;  Partridge  v.  Stocker,  36 
Vt.  108,  114. 

6  O'Daily  v.  Morris,  31  Ind.  Ill,  112;  Glover  r.  Alcott,  U  Mich. 
470,  485  ;  Kobinson  i'.  A\'aUace,  39  Pa.  St.  133. 

7  Brent  v.  Taylor,  6  Md.  58,  68. 

8  Conklin  v.  Doul,  67  111.  35.5,  359  ;  Switzer  v.  Valentine,  4  Duer,  06, 
R9  ;  Swasev  u.  Antrum,  24  Ohio  St.  87,  95;  Jacobs  v.  Featherstone,  6 
Watts  &  S.  347,  Hi'J. 

9  See  Wood  V.  Sanehev,  3  Daly,  107,  133  ;  Xash  v.  Mitchell,  71 
N.  Y.  200,203  ;  27  Am.  Rep."38. 

I  477.  The  rights  of  the  husband's  creditors.  —  If  the 
wife  labors  in  her  husband's  business,'  or  allows  her 
property  to  be  used  therein,'  the  profits  are  neverthe- 
less subject  to  the  rights  of  his  creditors ;  but  she  is 
not  personally  liable  to  the  creditors  of  the  business  if 
slie  has  acted  only  as  his  agent,  and  has  no  caj)acity  to 
contract.^  His  creditors  have  the  right  to  go  against 
her  separate  business  for  any  sums  put  into  it  by  her 
husband  in  fraud  of  their  rights,*  but  it  is  doubtful 
Avhether  this  applies  to  a  bona  fide  gift  by  him  to  her  of 
his  services ;  ^  in  eonie  cases  an  apportionment  has 
been  made,^and  this  would  of  course  be  done  if  he  and 
she  were  partners.'  His  creditors  have  no  rights  in 
the  profits  of  her  separate  business,*  in  cases  where  he 


I 


685  1NCIDE>-TS   OF   CAPACITY.  ?   ^Tff' 

has  provided  neither  property  nor  services.  Still,  they 
have  the  right  to  treat  the  business  as  his  wheni  she 
has  not  complied  with  the  requirements,  as  tO'  filing 
a  declaration  of  record,  etc.^  When  she  cannot  l)e  his 
partner,  she  incurs  no  liability  by  holding  herself  out 
as  sucIl^*^ 

1  Clinton  v.  Himmell,  25  X.  J.  Eq.  -lo,  -17;  ante,  §2  65>,WO.  See 
Duiuas  ('.  Neal,  51  (ja.  oGo,  5U6. 

2  Patton  V.  Gates,  67  III.  KH,  1157  ;  AVilsoii  i\  Loomis,  55  lUi  352,  355; 
ante,  'ii  12J,  132. 

3  Conklin  v.  Doul,  67  111.  355,  35S ;  O'Daily  v.  Morris,  STV  Ind.  Ill, 
112  ;  (Jlover  v.  Alcott,  H  Mich.  -470,  4S5  ;  Tuttle  v.  Hoag,  46.Mo.  38,  41  ; 
2.Vm.  Kep.  4SU 

■i  Thomas  v.  Desmonci,  63  Cal.  426,  427;  Penn  v.  Whitehead,  17 
Gratt.  o0.i,  512  ;  llichardson  r.  Merrill,  32  Vt.  27,  36;  mite,  JiU3-llS. 

5  Discussed  ante,  U  87,  i:50. 

6  See  Tavlor  v.  Cilidden,  16  Ohio  St.  503,  522  ;  Penn  v..  Whitehead, 
17Gratt.  503,  513. 

7  See  post,  5  4S0. 

8  Bellows  V.  Kosenthal,  31  Ind.  116,  117,  118  ;  cases  ante,  U  87,  209, 
227. 

9  Porter  v.  Gamba,  43  Cal.  105, 109  ;  ante,  i  472. 

10  Montgomery  v.  Spraukle,  31  lud.  113,  115;  Lord  v;  Parker,  3 
Allen.  127. 

§  478.  Bights  and  liabilities  of  husband  of  married  woman 
trader.  —  When  a  man  married  a  woman  engaged  in 
trade,  he  at  common  law  took  the  business  witli  its 
assets  1  and  liabilities  ;  ^  now  he  is  liable  only  where  he 
is  still  liable  for  her  antenuptial  debts,^  and  ha^  the 
right  to  tlie  business  only  when  such  property  is  secured 
to  her  neither  by  settlement  nor  by  statute.*  So  at 
common  law,  all  the  profits  of  her  business  during 
coverture  vested  with  her  other  earnings  and  tlie  other 
increase  of  her  property  in  him  ;  but  this,  too,  is  gener- 
ally changed.^  It  is  his  business  and  he  is  fully  liablej* 
and  need  not  give  her  any  part  of  the  profits,^  if  she 
is  trading  simply  by  his  consent  and  has  no  other 
authority; 8  she  may  even  be  a  partner  in  his  place.^ 
When  all  the  credit  is  given  to  her  he  is  not  liable.'*' 
Nor  is  he  liable  when  she  is  trading  independently  of 

H.  &  W.  — 58. 


gg   479-480  INCIDENTS   OF   CAPACITY.  686 

him  under  the  statutes,"  unless  he  is  a  iiartner/^  or 
actually  joins  in  the  transaction.'^ 

1  Ashworth  v.  Outram,  Law  R.  5  Ch.  D.  023,  929. 

2  Alexander  y.  Morgan,  31  Ohio  St.  548,  oJO. 

3  Discussed  ante,  I  G7. 

4  Rocliwell  V.  Clark,  U  Conn.  hM,  .536  ;  ante,  5?  203,  227. 

5  Stimsou  V.  Wliite,  20  Wis,  5G2,  5fiS ;  ante,  i  463. 

6  Jenkins  v.  Flinn,  .37  Ind.  »43,  352  ;  Oxnard  v.  Swanton,  33  Me. 
125,  12;);  Barton  v.  Beer,  35  Barb.  78,  79;  Jacobs  v.  i'eathersby,  6 
Watts  &  S.  347,  343  ;  ante,  |  403. 

7  Conklin  v.  Doul,  67  III.  35.5, 3.57  ;  Stimson  v.  White,  20  Wis.  562, 563. 

8  Discussed  ante,  U  93,  469. 

9  Swasey  v.  Antram,  24  Ohio  St.  87,  'J5. 

10  Jenkins  v.  Flinn,  .37  Ind.  349,  352  ;  Tuttle  v.  Hoag,  46  Mo.  38,  42  ; 
2  Am.  Kep.  481  ;  ante,  I  89. 

11  Trieber  v.  Stover,  30  Ark.  727,  731 ;  Smith  v.  Thompson,  36  Conn. 
117,10  1;  Haight  v.  McVeagh,  6»  111.624,628;  .Taycox  r.  Wing,  6,!  111. 
1S2,  184 ;  Colby  v.  Lamson,  33  Me.  119,  121 ;  Tuttle  v.  Iloag,  46  Mo.  38, 
42;  2  Ain.  liep.  4!)1  ;  Alexander  v.  Morgan,  31  Ohio  St.  546,  551. 

12  See  post,  ?  480. 

13  Krouskop  v.  Shontz,  51  Wis.  204,  217. 

I  479.  Married  women  trading  as  agents.  —  A  married 
v.'oniiin  is  not  b}' coverture  incapacitated  from  being  an 
agent ; '  and  one  may  frequentlj'  be  found  conducting 
another's  business,  especially  that  of  her  husband  ;  ^  one 
may  be  a  partner,  even,  in  her  husband's  place.^  In 
such  cases  she  binds  her  principal  of  course,'  but  she 
does  not  bind  herself  as  other  agents  may,  unless  she 
has  the  per.sonal  capacity  to  bind  herself  independently 
of  her  agency  ; »  and  it  seems  that  if  she  acted  simply 
as  agent,  she  would  not  be  trading  so  as  to  be  liable  as 
a  trader. 

1  Ante,  U  336,  363 ;  post,  ?  483. 

2  Penn  v.  Whitehead,  17  Gratt.  503,  512  ;  Jenkins  v.  Flinn.  37  Ind. 
349,  352  ;  ante,  U  90,  93,  469. 

3  Swasey  v.  Antram,  24  Ohio  St.  87,  95. 

4  Barton  i<.  Beer,  .35  Barb.  78,  73. 

5  ConsuItiJos<,  U  482,  483. 

§  480.  Married  women  as  partners.  —  It  has  been  held 
that  a  married  woman  trading  in  equity  witli  lier  equi- 


I 


687  INCIDENTS   OF   CAPACITY.  ?   480 

table  separate  proijerty  may  enter  into  i^artnership ;  ^ 
but  this  statement  must  be  taken  witli  limitations.  For 
the  normal  contract  of  partnersliip  is  a  personal  eon- 
tract,  involving  a  personal  caoaeity,^  whicli  a  married 
woman  does  not  have  either  in  equity,^  or  under  mere 
separate  property  acts.*  And  therefore  it  is  settled  that 
statutes  securing  to  married  women  their  property, 
with  the  rents,  profits,  increase,  etc.,  tliereof,  altliough 
they  enable  her  to  trade  in  a  limited  way,^  do  not  en- 
able her  to  enter  into  partnership.^  At  common  law, 
when  a  female  partner  married  the  partnership  was 
dissolved,'  and  now  she  cannot  be  a  partner  if  she  has 
no  capacity  to  trade  personally,^  or  if  she  is  oxjiressly 
prohibited  by  the  statute  enabling  her  to  trade,^  or  so 
far  as  she  is  partially  prohibited, i"  as  she  is  in  some 
States.  But  as  she  has,  under  the  statutes  giving  her 
the  capacity  to  trade  generally,  the  personal  capacity 
to  ti-ade  as  if  sole,  and  the  power  to  pursue  all  tlie 
usual  metliods  of  trade,"  she  may,  under  such  acts, 
trade  in  partnership  ;  ^^  she  may  even  be  held  respon- 
sible as  a  secret  partner. ^^  Still,  in  a  few  cases,  and  on 
different  grounds,  this  has  been  denied.^'  So,  as  she  is 
a/e>nme  sole  in  her  trade,''  and  may  emiDloy  an  agent, 
general  or  special,^^  and  may  emijloy  her  husband  as 
such,'^  there  seems  to  be  no  reason  why  she  should  not 
be  able  to  form  a  partnership  with  her  husband ;  and 
many  cases  hold,'*  while  others  assume,'^  that  she  may. 
But  this  is  also  strenuously  denied,  on  the  ground  that 
even  where  a  married  woman  maj'  contract,  she  can- 
not, without  express  authority,  contract  with  her  lius- 
band,'*  and  that  the  particular  statute  enables  her  to 
trade  on  her  separate  account.-'  To  this  it  is  replied, 
that  if  she  may  employ  her  husband  as  her  agent,  as 
all  admit  she  can. 2-  it  is  not  consistent  to  say  that  she 
cannot  contract  with  him  ;'^  and  that  the  word  "sepa- 


§   480  INCIDENTS   OF   CAPACITY.  688 

rate"  in  the  statutes  does  not  refer  to  the  mode  in' 
which  a  married  woman  shall  trade,  but  to  her  status 
as  independent  of  her  husband's  marital  control  and 
marriage  rights.^*  In  such  cases,  as  she  cannot  be  a 
partner,  and  tlierefore  could  not  be  held  liable  on  a 
partnership  note  signed  by  one  of  the  other  partners,-^ 
she  can,  neverclieless,  be  liable  on  her  individual  acts,-^ 
nor  does  she,  in  sucli  cases,  lose  her  property  put  into 
a  firm  business.^^  Though  she  may  not  join  a  firm  of 
whicli  lier  liusband  is  a  member,'-'^  she  may,  after  liis 
retirement,  go  in,  and  on  a  new  consideration  become 
liable  for  the  pre-existing  partnership  dobts.'^  80, 
although  she  cannot  be  a  partner,  she  may  jointly 
lease  and  share  the  profits  of  joint  property,^**  and  be 
bound  by  Iier  husband's  acts  as  her  agent  with  respect 
thereto,^'  If  the  husband  has  furnislied  joart  <jf  her 
caijital,  her  business  may  pro  tanto  be  liable  for  his 
debts,^'^  and  tlie  courts  have  sometimes,  without  speak- 
ing of  husband  and  wife  as  pai-tners,  ordered  an  appor- 
tionment of  the  profits  of  a  business  jointly  carried  on 
\>y  them.^^ 

1  Penn  v.  Whitehead,  17  Gratt.  503,  512. 

2  Carey  i\  Burruss,  20  W.  Va.  571,  570  ;  4-3  Am.  Kep.  790. 

3  Staley  v.  Hamilton,  19  Fla.  275,  2;)7  ;  ante,  I  206. 

4  Russel  V.  People,  39  Mich.  671,  673  ;  33  Am.  Rep.  444  :  ante,  U  2.37- 
2.39,  370. 

5  Discussed  ante,  U  46S,  470. 

6  Bradstreet  v.  Baer,  41  Md.  19,  23 ;  Mayer  v.  Soyster,  30  Md.  403  ; 
Howard  v.  Stephens,  52  Miss.  239,  244  :  Bradford  v.  Johnson,  44  Tex. 
381,  383  ;  Carey  r.  Burruss,  2U  VV.  Va.  571,  576  ;  43  Am.  Kep.  790. 

7  Bassett  v.  Shepardson,  17  N.  W.  Rep.  216,  219  ;  52  Mich.  3,  7  ; 
Alexander  v.  Morgan,  31  Ohio  8t.  54G,  550. 

8  Svvasey  ?'.  Antram,  24  Ohio  St.  87,  95;  Carey  v.  Burruss,  20 
W.  Va.  571,  575  ;  43  Am.  Rep.  7i)0. 

9  See  Todd  v.  Clapp,  118  Mass.  495,  496. 

10  See  Porter  v.  Gamba,  43  Cal.  105, 10,1. 

11  Zimmerman  v.  Erhard,  .5?  How.  Pr.  11, 14  ;  ante,  ?  475. 

12  Kinkead,  3  Biss.  405.  410;  Camden  v.  Mullen,  29  Cal.  564,  565; 
Francis  v.  Dickel,  (>■*  Ga.  2*5,  25S  ;  Preusser  v.  Henshaw,  49  Iowa,  41, 
44  ;  Westphal  v.  Henney,  49  Iowa,  542,  543 ;  Plunier  v.  Lord,  5  Allen, 


I 


689  INCIDENTS  OP  CAPACITY.  g  481 

460,  462 ;  Parshall  v.  Fisher,  43  Mich.  529,  532,  534  ;  Newman  v.  Morris. 
52  Miss.  402,  406  ;  Zimmerman  v.  Krhard,  58  How.  Pr.  11,  13  ;  8  Daly, 
311  ;  Bitter  v.  Rathman,  61  X.  Y.  512,  513  ;  Scott  v.  Coiiwav,  oS  N.  Y. 
619;  Oratf  v.  Kennedy,  31  Alb.  L.  J.  2  ;  Silveus  v.  Porter,  71  Pa.  St. 
44S,  449;  Krouskop  v.  Shoutz,  51  Wis.  204,  217  ;  Horneffer  v.  Duress,  13 
Wis.  60i,  «i05. 

13  See  Parshall  v.  Fisher,  43  Mich.  529,  534  ;  Scott  v.  Conway,  .58 
N.  Y.  619 ;  Bitter  v.  Rathman,  61  N.  Y.  512,  51.i. 

14  Haas  v.  Shaw,  91  Inrl.  3S4,  381,  396  ;  Mont!?omery  v.  Sprankle,  31 
Ind.  113,  115  ;  Mayhow )'.  Baker,  15  Iiid.  2.54,  2.')"  ;  P,ru(lstreet  v.  Baer, 
41  Md.  19,  23  ;  Cruzen  v.  McKai?,  .57  M'i.  454,  4f.:  ;  Mov-r  /•.  Soyster,  30 
Md.  403  ;  Carey  v.  Burruss,  20  W.  Va.  571,  .576  ;  43  Am.  lleiJ.  799  ;  supra, 
B.  9. 

15  Young  V.  Gori,  13  Abb.  Pr.  13, 14,  n  ;  ante,  ?  47-5. 
IS    Abbey  v.  Deyo,  44  Barb.  374,  381  ;  ante,  \  475. 

17  Ranlcin  v.  West,  25  Mich.  195,  200  ;  ante,  U  87,  475. 

18  Kinkead,  3  Biss.  40.5,  410;  Francis  v.  Dickel,  6S  Ga.  255,  258; 
Newman  v.  Morris.  52  Miss.  402,  406 ;  Zimmerman  v.  Erhard,  .58 
How.  Pr.  11, 13  ;  Graff  i'.  K.-anedy,  31  Alb.  L.  J.  2. 

19  Can.den  v.  Mullen,  29  Cal.  564,  5R5  ;  Westphal  v.  Henney,  49 
Iowa,  .542,  543;  Parshall  v.  Fisher,  43  Mich.  529,  .532,  .554  ;  Silveus  v. 
Porter,  74  Pa.  St.  44S,  44 1 ;  Krouskop  v.  Shontz,  51  Wis.  204,  217; 
Horneffer  v.  Duress,  13  Wis.  mi,  604. 

20  See  ante,  \  43  ;  infra,  n.  21. 

21  Lord  V.  Parker,  3  Allen,  127,  129;  Edwards  v.  Stevens,  3  Allen, 
815  ;  Plumer  v.  Lord,  5  Allen,  460,  462  ;  Allen  v.  Johnson,  48  Miss.  413. 
419.    See  Haas  v.  Shaw,  91  lud.  384,  389 ;  supra,  n.  14. 

22  Ante,  ??  87,  475. 

23  Zimmerman  v.  Erhard,  .58  How.  Pr.  U,  13. 

24  Zimmerman  v.  Erhar  1, 53  How.  Pr.  11,  14  ;  ante,  }  472. 

25  Carey  v.  Burruss,  20  W.  Va.  571,  532  ;  43  Am.  Rep.  790  ;  Plumer 
V.  Lord,  7  Allen,  481,  4S.5. 

26  Cruzen  v.  McKaig,  57  Md.  4.54,  462. 

27  Mayhew  v.  iiaker,  15  Ind.  254,  257. 
23    Plumer  v.  Lord,  7  Allen,  481,  484. 

29  Preusser  ii.  Henshaw,  4T  Iowa,  41,  44. 

30  Allen  V.  Johnson,  48  Miss.  413,  419. 

31  Reiman  v.  Hamilton,  111  Mass.  245,  247. 

32  Horneffer  v.  Duress,  13  Wis.  603,  605  ;  ante,  U  113-118,  129, 1.30, 478. 

33  Taylor  v.  Glidden,  16  Ohio  St.  509,  522 ;  Penu  i-.  Whitehead,  17 
Gratt,  503,  513  ;  ante,  i'i  87,  129, 1:50. 

^  481.  Married  women  as  incorporators,  stockholders, 
eto.  —  Very  nearly  the  .same  questions  arise  in  consider- 
ing a  married  woman'.i  cai)acity  to  be  an  incorporator 
as  those  which  are  involved  in  lier  right  to  be  a  part- 
ner.i  Corjjorators  enter  into  a  mutual  and  personal 
contract,  wliicli  is  concluded   by  tlie  acl;  of  incorpora- 


g   4§1  INCIDENTS   OF   CAPACITY.  690 

tion ;  2  and,  therefore,  without  personal  capacity  to 
contract,  a  married  woman  could  not  be  an  ineorpora- 
tor.3  But  as  business  is  A^ery  commonly  carried  on  by 
corporations,  a  married  woman  with  capacity  to  trade 
would,  it  seems,  have  capacity  to  be  an  incorporator.* 
The  fact  that  the  corporation  laws  provide  tliat  "  any 
person "  may  be  an  incorporator,  would  not  afiect  a 
inarried  woman  under  incapacity,  by  virtue  of  a  rule 
already  discussed. ^  Bui  a  married  woman  may  be  a 
stockholder,^  holding  her  stock  as  any  other  chose  in 
action;'  and  it  has  been  held  that  when  she  can  hold 
stock  as  if  sole,  she  is  liable  as  any  other  stockholder  — 
for  example,  for  assessments.^ 

1  Plumer  v.  Lord,  5  Allen,  4G0,  462. 

2  Taylor  Corporations,  g  31. 

3  No  decision. 

4  In  accordance  with  the  .spirit  of,  nnte,  ?  475. 

5  Ante,  II  12,  369. 

6  See  Cal.  Civ.  Code  ISSl,  ??  2S.T-325  ;  W.  Va.  Code  1S7S,  ch.  122,  ?  9. 

7  Ante,  ??  173,  219. 

8  Anderson  v.  Line,  14  Fed.  Rep.  405,  406  ;  The  Reciprocity  Bank, 
22  N.  Y.  9,  IS ;  ante,  U  12.  369. 


691  EEPBESENTATIVE   CAPACITIES.  ?  482 


CHAPTER  XXYIII. 

MARRIED   WOMEN   IN   REPRESENTATIVE   CAPACITIES. 

5  -182.  The  questions  Involved. 

2  4S3.  Some  general  rules. 

J  48-1.  Married  women  as  ageiits. 

J  485.  Married  women  as  trustees. 

5  4SG.  Married  women  as  executrices,  etc. 

i  487.  Married  women  as  guardians. 

§  482.  The  questions  involved. — Whether  married 
women  may  act  in  representative  capacities  —  whether 
they  may  be  agents,  tru.stees,  administratoi's,  executors, 
guardians,  etc.  —  and  how  far  their  acts  in  such  capaci- 
ties have  the  same  effect  as  the  acts  of  persons  sui  juris 
in  similar  capacities,  are  questions  which  are  nowhere 
fully  discussed  ;  and  much  confusion  is  likel3^  to  result 
in  such  a  discussion,  unless  the  dilterent  points  of  view 
from  which  the  subject  may  be  approached  be  borne  in 
mind.  For  example,  a  married  woman  may  be  au 
agent,  in  the  sense  that  slie  may,  just  as  if  she  were 
sole,  bind  a  party  who  has  authorized  her  to  act  for 
her,'  but  not  necessarily  at  the  same  time,  in  the  sense 
that  she  may  recover  compensation  for  her  services,-  or 
be  liable  for  money  received  to  her  principal's  use,^  or 
be  personally  liable  to  third  parties  with  whom  she  has 
dealt  in  her  own  name.*  So  she  may  be  a  trustee,  ii\ 
the  sense  that  her  husband  cannot  claim  substantial 
rights  in  property  of  which  she  holds  only  the  bare 
legal  title,^  and  that  she  may  dispose  of  such  loroperty 
in  accordance  with  the  powers  vested  in  her  by  the 
trust ;  ^  and  yet  she  would  not  therefore  be  liable  per- 
sonally for  work  done  at  her  request,'  as  a  i^erson  sui 
juris  would  be,^  or  be  able  to  bind  herself  personally 


§   483  EEPBESENTATIVE  CAPACITIES.  692 

to  execute  the  powers  of  her  trust.^  And  so  she  may- 
be an  administratrix,  in  the  sense  that  once  appointed 
she  may  act  as  sucli.'"  and  yet  her  appointment  may 
depend  on  the  consent  of  her  husband."'  It  thus  plainly 
appears  that  a  married  woman  who  may  act  in  a  repi'e- 
sentative  capacity,  does  not,  while  so  acting,  have  the 
same  rights  and  liabilities  as  2kfemme  sole,  and  that  the 
following  questions  may  arise,  namely  :  (1)  How  far  do 
her  conjugal  obligations  conflict  with  her  right  to  act  in 
a  representative  capacity  —  how  far  has  her  husband  the 
right  to  control  her  in  this  respect  ?  (2)  How  far  do  her 
personal  disabilities — her  coverture  —  alfect  her  capacity 
to  so  act  ?  (3)  How  far  do  her  acts  in  a  repre-icntative 
capacity  aftect  her  personally,  (4)  or  her  husband.  (5) 
or  her  principal  or  estate,  (6)  or  the  third  parties  with 
whom  she  deals  ?  And  these  questions  will  be  discussed 
first  generally,'-  and  then  as  involved  in  the  most  usual 
of  caijacities  in  which  she  may  act.'^ 

1  Debenham  v.  Mellon,  Law  R.  5  Q.  B.  D.  3W,  402  ;  ante,  ??  89-98 ; 
post,  I  4S4. 

2  Hazelbaker  v.  Goodfellow,  64  111.  238,  241 ;  Abbey  v.  Deyo,  44 
Barb.  374,  380 ;  ante,  i  65. 

3  Tuckers.  Cocke,  32  Miss.  1S4, 189;  Andrews  r.  Ormsbee,  11  Mo- 
400,  402  ;  Carleton  v.  Haywood,  49  N.  H.  314,  320  ;  ante,  i  3,S1. 

4  See  Tuttie  v.  Hoag,  46  Mo.  41,  42  ;  2  Am.  Rep.  481. 

5  Claussen  v.  La  Franz,  1  Iowa,  226,  234  ;  post,  i  435. 

6  1  Perry  Trusts,  I  48. 

7  See  Still  v.  Ruby,  35  Pa.  St.  373,  374. 

8  Gill  V.  Carmine,  55  Md.  339. 

9  Avery  v.  GrifTin,  Law  R.  6  Eq.  606,  608. 

10  Pemberton  x\  Chapman,  El.  B.  &  E.  1056,  1067  ;  x)ost,  ?  486. 

11  Stewart,  56  Me.  300,  SOL 

12  Post,  I  483. 

13  Pos^  5  HS4-487. 

g  483.  Some  general  rules  as  to  married  women  in  repre- 
sentative capacities.  —  With  regard  to  the  questions  al- 
ready stated,'  certain  general  rules  may  be  formulated, 
to  wit  :  — 


693  KEPKESENTATIVK   CAPACITIES,  \   433 

1.  ^45  to  hiisbamVs  consent.  At  common  law,  a  hus- 
band not  only  took  his  wife  "with  ail  her  accrued  obliga- 
tions,^  but  he  was  also  jointly  liable  with  her  for  her 
torts,  whether  committed  with  his  consent  or  not,*  and 
was  therefore  liable  for  all  her  breaches  of  trust,  dc- 
vastavits,  etc  ;*  so  that  for  his  own  protection  he  had 
the  right  to  say  whether  she  should  act  in  a  representa- 
tive cajjacitj',  and  subject  him  to  such  additional  risks.^ 
But  his  consent  was  necessarj'  only  so  far  as  his  liabilities 
were  concerned*^  —  he  could  not,  for  example,  object  to 
her  executing  a  power  to  convey  property ; ''  and  for 
this  reason,  it  would  seem  that  his  right  to  object  at  all 
is  removed  by  statutes  destroying  his  marital  liability 
for  the  acts  of  his  wife.* 

2.  As  to  wife's  coverture.  The  fact  that  a  wife  has  no 
personal  capacities,  but  is  under  the  disabilities  of 
coverture,  does  not  i:)revent  her  acting  in  a  representative 
capacit3' ;  ^  she  may  be  au  agent,!''  administratrix  or 
executrix,'!  trustee,'-  or  guardian  ;  '^  it  onXy  aftects  her 
personal  rights  and  obligations  while  acting  in  such 
capacities.'*  A  married  woman  is  not  in  this  i-espect 
like  an  idiot ;  she  has  as  much  discretion  after  as  before 
marriage.'^ 

3.  As  to  personal  rights  and  obligations  of  u-ife.  The 
fact  that  a  married  woman  may  act  in  a  representative 
capacity,  and  is  so  acting,  does  not  enlarge  her  per- 
sonal capacities,  or  remove,  as  far  as  she  is  herself 
concerned,  her  marriage  disabilities,  or  atfect  her  per- 
sonal status.'^  Her  contracts,  though  made  in  her  own 
name,  do  not  bind  her  personally,  unless  she  has  the 
capacity  to  contract  personally  ; ''  so  she  may  be  unable 
to  stipulate  for  any  compensation.'*  For  her  torts  she 
is,  of  course,  personally  liable,  for  a  married  Avoman  is 
not  even  at  common  law  under  disa'oiiaty  to  commit 
wrongs.'^ 


1  483  KEPRESEXTATIVE   CAPACITIES.  604 

4.  jLs  to  her  husbaiid^s  rights  and  obligations.  A  hus- 
band has  no  i^roijertj'  or  estate  in  funds  held  by  a  mar- 
ried -woinan  in  a  representative  capacity.-"  He  generally 
sues  and  is  sued  with  her  for  conformity  ;  -'  and  on  con- 
tracts on  which  if  sole  she  could  have  declared  in  her 
own  name,  he  could  at  common  law  sue  alone.^^  For 
all  her  devastavits  and  acts  in  the  nature  of  tort  he  is 
jointly  liable  wiih  her,^  in  accordance  with  the  rules 
already  discussed  relating  to  a  husband's  liability  for 
his  wife's  torts.^*  He  is  liable  for  her  contracts  only  if 
she  acted  as  his  agent.^  He  must  account  for  any 
money  which  passes  into  his  possession.^^ 

5.  As  to  the  estate  or  principal.  The  estate  or  person 
whom  the  wife  represents  is  bound,  and  receives  the 
benefit  of  her  acts  just  as  if  she  were  sole  ;  -"  her  con- 
veyance in  accordance  with  her  powers,-*  or  her  receijit 
for  fuud.s,-"9  is  binding  as  if  on  him. 

G.  As  to  third  parties.  The  rights  and  obligations  of 
the  persons  with  Avhom  she  deals  as  representative  are 
the  same,  as  far  as  the  person  or  estate  which  she 
represents  is  concerned,  as  if  she  were  sole  ;  ^^o  but  as 
far  as  she  herself  is  concerned,  they  are  simi^ly  such  as 
may  exist  against  any  married  woman.^^ 

1  Ante,  I  432. 

2  Discussed  ante,  H  f>G,  G7. 

3  Ferguson  v.  Collins,  8  Ark.  2-{l,  252  ;  ante,  ?  G6. 

4  3Ic Williams,  1  8choales  &  L..  1G3,  173;  Adair  v.  Shaw,  1 
Schoales  &  I..  243, 2G.;,  2G0,  211 ;  Peniburtou  v.  ClKipaian,  7  1.1.  <fc  B.  210  ; 
El.  B.  &  E.  lUoH,  lOGO  ;  Clough  v.  Bond,  3  Jlyluc  &  C.  4;/0,  4rf9  ;  .Smith, 
21  Beav.  3;o,  o-S7 ;  Kingham  c.  Lee,  15  Sim.  3U6,401  •  Kearslev  v.  Oklev, 

2  Hurl.  &  C.  t> JO,  fioo  ;  Loodv  v.  TiirnbuU,  Luw  K.  1  Ch.  App.  4'.14,  4;is  ; 
34  Law  J.  X.  S.  Ch.  533  ;  Derbyshire  v.  Home,  5  DeGex  Ji  S.  702,  70j  ; 

3  DcGex,  M.  &  G.  80  ;  Taylor  v.  Allen,  2  Atk.  212,  213 ;  Bubbers  v. 
Ilarby,  3  Curt.  50  ;  7  Ex.  3G3  ;  Trust  v.  Sedgwick,  97  U.  S.  304,  309 ;  Bobo 
V.  Frowner,  18  Ala.  8J,  ii5 ;  Kavanaugh  x\  Thompson,  16  Ala.  817,  823  ; 
Carlisle  v.  Turtle,  CO  ALi.  6!3,  624  ;  Moffit  v.  ('onmionw.  5  Pa.  St.  :!-5'J, 
S6S  ;  Tabb  v.  Bovd,  4  C.ili,  453,  457  ;  jNloon  V.  Henderson,  4  Desaus.  Eq. 
453,  461 ;  Knox  v.  Pi  'kct,  4  Desaus.  Eq.  112,  93  ;  Allen  %\  ISIcCuUough,  2 
Heisk.  174,  lo3  ;  5  Am.  liep.  27 ;  3IcCreedy,  1  Tuck.  374,  STC. 

5  Dve,  2  Kobt.  342,  344  ;  Pembcrton  v.  Chapman,  7  El.  &  C.  210,  21S  ; 
El.  B.  &  E.  1056,  106J;  Clariie,  Luw  li.  6  P.  D.  1U3,  104  ;  Ad.:ir  r.  Shaw, 
1  Sciioales  &  L.  243, 266  ;  iiugiisii  i;,  ]!Jc2fuir,34  Ala.  40,  4s,  4J  ;  Stewart 


695  REPRESEXTATIVE   CAPACITIES.  §   484 

56  Me.  300,  301  ;   Palmer  r.  Oakley,  2  Doug,  fitich.)  4.^■5,  46S ;   supra, 
n.  4. 

6  Pemberton  v.  Chapman,  EI.  B.  &  E.  ia56,  1067. 

7  See  Claussen  v.  Ea  Franz,  1  Iowa,  ±26,  2.14  ;  ante,  U  202,  212. 

8  Consult  ante,  I  06. 

9  1  Perry  Trusts,  J  4S  ;  Story  Agencv,  l~  \  1  Williuius  E.xecutors, 
965. 

10  Dibcussed /3o««,  2  4^- 

11  Discussfd /)o.sf ,  J  4s5. 

12  Discussed  post,  \  4^6. 

13  Discussed  imst,  I  487. 

14  See  Pemberton  )•.  Chapman,  El.  B.  &  E.  1056,  lOflS  ;  Avery  v. 
GiiiRn,  Law  K.  6  Eq.  606,  6as  ;  Tucker  r.  Cocke,  32  iiibs.  1»4,  lij. 

15  Bell  V.  Hyde,  Prec.  Ch.  S50. 

16  See  Eussel.  5  Coke,  27  6  ;  Pemberton  v.  Chapma^i,  El.  B.  &  E. 
1056,  106S  ;  Hazelbaker  c.  Goodfellow,  64  111.  2:5S,  241  ;  Abbey  v.  Deyo. 
44  Barb.  374,  3S0:  Tucker  v.  Cocke,  32  Mis.':.  1S4.  IS'.i  ;  Andrews  v. 
Ormsbee,  U  3Io.  400,  402  ;  Tuttle  r.  Hoag.  46  Mo.  41,  42;  2  Am.  Rep. 
+S1 ;  Carleton  r.  Haywood,  4J  N.  H.  314,  320  ;  .StUl  v.  Rubv,  33  Pa.  St. 
373,  374  ;  ante,  }  4S2. 

17  Tuttle  r.  Hoag,  46  5Io.  41,  42  ;  2  Am.  Rep.  481. 

18  Hazelbaker  x:  Goodfellow,  64  111.  238,  241 ;  anu,  I  0.5. 

19  Discussed  ante,  U  66,  421-425. 

20  Workford,  1  Salk.  306  ;  Claussen  v.  La  Franz,  1  Iowa,  226,  2.34  ; 
Roberts  v.  Place,  18  X.  H.  183,  184. 

21  Still  V.  Uuby,  35  Pa.  St.  373,  .374  ;  ante.  |?  4.39,  44;). 

22  Ankersteln  r.  Clarke,  4  Term,  616,  C17;  Yard  v.  Ellard,  I  Salk. 
117  ;  Jenkins  c.  Plombe,  0  Mod.  93,  94. 

23  Cases  supra,  notes  4,  .5. 

24  Ante,  ?  06. 

•25    Tuttle  V.  Hoag,  46  Mo.  41,  42  ;  2  Am.  Rep.  481  ;  nnte,  5  67. 

26  Keister  r.  Howe,  3  Ind.  268,  263. 

27  See  Russel,  5  Coke,  27  6. 

28  Bouldin  r.  Reynolds,  53  Md.  491,  435  ;  Schlev  v.  McCeiiev,  36  Md. 
266,  273  ;  ante,  \  212. 

29  Pemberton  v.  Chapman,  7  El.  &  B.  210,  218  ;  El.  B.  &,  E.  1056. 1007. 

30  See  Russel,  5  Coke,  27  6. 

31  See  Still  v.  Ruby,  35  Pa.  St.  373,  374. 

§  484.  Married  women  as  agents.  —  .A.  married  woman 
may  be  an  agent  (subject  possibly  to  her  liusband'.s 
consent';,  in  the  sense  that  her  principal  and  the  party 
■with  whom  she  deals  for  him  are  bound  by  any  trans- 
action conducted  by  her,  just  as  if  she  were  sole.'-* 
Hence,  slie  may  execute  any  power,  whether  append- 
ant or  in  gross,  without  any  reference  to  her  covert- 


g   486  KEPRESENTATIVE   CAPACITIES.  696 

ure.^  She  maj^  act  as  her  husband's  agent,*  and  may 
thus  dispose  of  his  property  inter  vivos^  or  by  will;^ 
she  may  trade  in  his  place,'  and  be  i^artner  for  hini,^ 
and  may  bind  liim  by  her  acts,  admissions,  etc.^  But 
she  is  not  personally  liable  for  her  acts  except  as  a 
married  woman, ^'^  and  only  as  such  can  she  acquire 
personal  rights.^^  Though  when  her  earnings  belong 
to  her  she  may  contract  for  compensation  for  her  ser- 
vices ;i^  her  relation  towards  her  husbami  may  render 
any  such  contract  with  him  invalid.'^  When  she  is 
agent  before  mairiage,  the  husband  does  not  by  mar- 
riage become  jointly  agent  with  her.i* 

1  See  an<e,  ?  JSa. 

2  Story  Agency,  §  7  ;  ante,  U  S^-SS.  363. 

3  Schlev  r.  McCeney,  36  Md.  266,  273  ;  Bouldin  v.  Reynolds,  58  Md. 
431,  495  ;  ante,  H  203,  205,  M2,  363. 

4  Discussed  ante,  U  89-9S,  348,  469. 

5  Prestwiok  v.  Marshall,  7  Bing.  555,567;  Goodwin  i>.  Kelley,  42 
Barb.  1J4,  liKi ;  ante,  U  S9-H8. 

6  Cutter  v.  Butler,  25  N.  H.  205,  210  ;  57  Am.  Dec.  300  ;  ante,  i  348. 

7  Tuttle  V.  Hoag,  46  Mo.  41,  42  ;  2  Am.  Rep.  481  ;  ante,  \\  93,  469. 

8  Swasey  v.  Antram,  24  Ohio  St.  87,  95. 

9  Emerson  !•.  Rlouden,  1  Esp.  142,  143 ;  Hopkins  v.  MoUineux,  4 
Wend.  4(i5,  467  ;  ante,  U  m-'JS. 

10  Tucker  v.  Cocke,  32  Miss.  184, 189  ;  Andrews  r.  Ormsbee,  11  Mo. 
400,  402  ;  Carletoii  r.  Haywood,  4s)  N.  H.  314,  320  ;  ante,  i  udl. 

11  See  Ankerstein  v.  Clarke,  4  Term,  616  ;  Yard  r.  Ellard,  1  Salk. 
117  ;  Jenkins  v.  Plombe,  6  Mod.  93,  94. 

12  Adams  v.  Ilonness,  62  Barb.  326,  336. 

13  viiite,  ?Hl-44,  65. 

14  Marder  v.  Lee.  3  Burr.  1460, 1471. 

g  485.  Married  women  as  trustees.  —  Married  women 
may  become  trustees  bj'  deed,  gift,  bequest,  appoint- 
ment, or  by  operation  of  law  ;  i  for  exami^le,  one  may 
bo  a  trustee  under  a  mortgage.^  A  wife  cannot,  how- 
ever, be  at  law  trustee  for  her  husband,^  as  they  are 
one  person,''  but  in  equity  she  can  be  trustee  for  him 
as  for  anyone  else;^  resulting  trusts  frequently  arise 
between  them.''    So  if  an  estate  comes  to  a  mai-ried 


697  EEPRESFNTATIVE    CAPACITIES.  §   486 

woman  in  any  way,  charged  with  a  trust,  her  coverture 
cannot  be  pleaded  in  bar  of  the  trust ;  Mf  a  mere  life 
tenant  of  personalty,  she  may  be  compelled  to  give 
bond  ;S  she  may  be  compelled  to  perform  the  duties  of 
her  trust  ;8  and  her  husband  has  no  estate  in  property 
in  whicli  she  has  a  bare  legal  title.'"  She  cannot,  how- 
ever, bind  herself  personally  in  dealing  witli  her  trust 
estate.ii  She  and  her  husband  are  both  liable  at  com- 
mon law  for  her  breaches  of  trust ;  ^^  such  acts  of  hers 
are  treated  as  torts.'*  Still, .  a  court  will  not  readily 
appoint  a  married  woman  trustee.'* 

1  ppiTV  Trusts.  H^;  Trust  Co.  v.  Sedgwick,  97  U.  S.  301,  303; 
Springer  r.  Berry,  47  Me.  S30,  :«5  ;  Bouldiii  v.  Reynolds,  03  Md.  4i)l, 
4!*4  ;  .Still  r.  Ruby,  3.3  Pa.  .St.  373,  37-1. 

2  Bouldi:i  v.  Reynolds,  .5S  Md.  491,  494,  495. 

3  Mutual  V.  Deale,  18  Md.  26,  4G  ;  Warbeck  v.  Havens,  42  Barb. 
66,  70. 

4  Ante,  I  38. 

5  Uvi:igston,2  Johns.  Ch.  541.    See  1  Perry  Trusts,  J?  48.  51. 
0    Discussed  ante,  i  132. 

7  Clarke  v.  Saxon,  1  Hill  Ch.  69  ;  Berry  r.  Xorris,  1  Duval,  .302. 

8  Clarke  v.  Saxon,  1  Hill  Ch.  69,  74. 

9  Dundas  v.  Biddle,  2  Pa.  St.  160,  1G1. 

10  Claussen  v.  La  Franz,  1  Iowa,  22(5,  2"4  ;  <inte,  I  4  v". 

11  Averv  v.  Griffin,  Law  R.  6  Eq.  606,  COS;  Still  v.  Ruby,  35  Pa.  St. 
373,  374  ;  ante,  U  482,  483. 

12  Trust  Co.  V.  Sedgwick,  07  U.  S.  304,  309. 

13  Ante,  §  483  ;  jioat,  ?  486. 

14  Kaye,  Law  R.  1  Ch.  387 ;  1  Perry  Trusts,  ?  51. 

g  486,  Married  women  as  executrices,  etc.  —  The  law  on 
this  subject  is  in  a  most  confused  condition,  and  is  con- 
trolled in  mo.st  States  by  peculiar  statutes.  Any  dis- 
cussion thereof  must  therefore  be  unsatisfactory. 

1.  Appointment  of  married  women  as.  At  common 
law  a  married  woman  could  be  appointed  executrix  or 
administratrix,'  as  her  personal  disalailities  did  not 
ineai)acitate  her  from  acting  in  a  representative  cajjac- 
ity.-'  But  on  account  of  the  liabilities  witli  which  she 
might  thereby  invest  her  husband,  she  could  not  be 

H.  &  W.  —  59. 


§  486  REPRESENTATIVE   CAPACITIES.  698 

appointed  without  his  consent.^  His  consent  could  be 
given  before  or  after  tlie  granting  of  letters,-*  and  in 
the  absence  of  any  evidence  that  it  was  given  would  be 
presumed  ;^  being  necessary  only  on  account  of  liis  lia- 
bilities, it  is  not  necessary  when  no  question  of  Iiis 
liabilities  could  arise.^  By  the  ecclesiastical  law  she 
was  a  distinct  person  from  her  husband,  and  his  con- 
sent was  not  necessary  at  all.'  By  statutes  in  most 
States  she  may  be  administratrix,  but  usually  her  hus- 
band is  required  to  join  witli  her  or  to  go  upon  her 
bond.8 

2.  Marriage  of  female  executrix.  By  the  common 
law  a  luisband,  by  marrying  an  administratrix  or 
executiix,  consented  tliat  she  should  act  as  such;* 
and  probably,  independently  of  statute,  the  marriage 
of  a  female  executrix,  etc.,  in  no  way  affects  her 
authority.!"  It  has,  however,  been  said  that  by  the 
marriage  the  husband  becomes  co-executor  with  his 
wife ; "  tliat  he  administers  in  her  right  for  his  own 
protection  ;i^  and  that  the  rights  of  administration  vest 
in  him  just  as  if  he  had  been  hiiuself  ajipointed  ; '^ 
also,  that  marriage  does  not  revoke  letters,  but  is  only 
a  cause  for  revocation,  even  under  a  statute  which 
requires  a  new  bond,  when  an  administratrix  mai'ries." 
By  statutes  in  many  States  the  autliority  of  a  female 
administratrix  ceases  with  her  marriage,!^  but  such 
statutes  are  not  retrospectively  construed. "^ 

3.  Incidents.  When  acting  as  administratrix,  a  mar- 
ried woman  has,  as  far  as  the  estate  is  concerned,  the 
capacities  of  a  feniTne  sole,^''  but  no  additional  personal 
rights  or  liabilities  ;  ^^  she  may,  for  example,  give  a  valid 
receipt  for  funds  of  the  estate.'*  Her  liusband  has  no 
rights  over  the  funds  of  the  estate,^"  and  if  he  takes 
them  into  his  possession  it  is  a  devastavit. ^i  For  all 
defaults,  doN'astavits,  etc.,  husband  and  wife  are  jointly 


699  EEPRESENTATIVS    CAPACITIES.  ?   486 

liable, ^^  just  as  they  are  for  torts  in  which  the  wife  has 
some  part.^  The  husband's  lialiility  lias  been  attrib- 
uted to  his  getting  possession  of  the  funds, ^i  or  to  his 
consenting  to  her  acting  in  the  special  capacity,^^  but 
tliis  would  not  explain  her  liability  ;  besides,  his  con- 
sent is  said  to  be  necessary  only  because  of  his  liabili- 
ties, and  these  cannot,  at  the  same  time,  be  said  to 
depend  on  his  consent.  Although  there  is  consider- 
able difficulty  in  treating  a  devastavit  as  a  tort,  some 
of  the  eases  suggest  this  view,^^  and  it  is  the  only  one 
by  which  the  authorities  can  be  explained  ;  for  usually 
a  married  woman  is  not  liable  on  any  contract  express 
or  implied,'^'  and  cannot  bo  made  to  account  for  money 
received  by  her  for  another's  use.'^  For  conformity, 
the  husband  generally  sues  and  is  sued  with  his  wife  ;  ^ 
but  in  cases  where  she  could  have  declared  in  her  own 
name  if  unmarried,  he  might,  at  common  law,  sue 
alone.^'^  A  wife  may  renounce  her  right  to  administer 
against  her  liusband's  consent,^^  though  it  is  said  that 
a  husband  has  sometimes  the  right  to  administer  in 
right  of  his  wire.-'-  As  executrix  she  could,  at  common 
law,  make  a  will.^^  Where  the  husband  is,  as  hus- 
band, co-executor,  service  on  him  is  sufficient.^'  A 
writ  ve  exeat  cannot  issue  against  her  alone.^^  Her 
husband  stands  in  a  fiduciary  relation,  and  cannot  pur- 
chase from  lier  co-executor.^* 

1  English  )•.  McNair,  34  Ala.  40,  48,  41 ;  Stewart,  5«i  Me.  300,  301  ; 
Palmer  7'.  Oakle.v,  2  Doug.  (.Mich.)  433,  466-i6S  ;  47  Am.  Dec.  41 ;  1  Wil- 
liams Executors,  233. 

2  See  ante,  ?  483. 

3  Bve,  2  Robt.  342,  344  ;  Bubbers  v.  Harbv,  3  furt.  50 ;  7  Eng.  r,. 
363;  PpiiihHrtou  v.  Chapman,  7  Kl.  &  1^..  210,  21s:  Kl.  15.  Sz.  E.  10"6, 
lOfiO  ;  Clurkp.  i>aw  R.  fi  P.  V).  103,  101 ;  Adair  /'.  SIkuv,  1  .Sf>bo.al"S  <t  L. 
243,  2(iG:  KnaHsh  v.  McNair,  34  Ala.  40.  4s  ;  Hti'Wart.  ".'1  Me.  3(iO,  :^0i  ; 
Hinils  V.  JoiifS,  48  Me.  348,  350;  Wooilrulf  v.  Cox,  2  Braclf.  153,155; 
ante,  I  483. 

4  Psmberton  v.  Chapman,  7  El.  &  B.  210,  210. 
.    5    Eagli.'-ih  I'.  McNair,  31  Ala.  40,  43. 

6    Pembcrton  v.  Chapman,  El.  C.  &  E.  1058,  1007. 


g   486  REPRESENTATIVE   CAPACITIES.  700 

7  Palnipr  v  Oakley,  2  Doug.  (Mich.)  433,  406  ;  47  Am.  Doc.  41  ;  1 
Williiims  Executors,  233. 

8  .See  Ensrlish  v.  McNair,  34  Ala.  40,  4S ;  Whitaker  r.  A\'right,  35 
Ark.  511  ;  Cluussjn  v.  La  Fraiiz,  1  Iowa,  22fi,  237  ;  Biaiiormau  v. 
Weaver,  8  Md.  521,  523  ;  Curser,  25  Hun,  57!),  5S0. 

9  Woodruff  I'.  Cox,  2  Bradf.  1.53,  l.M. 

10  Yates  v.  Clark,  56  Miss.  212,  216. 

11  Murphee  v.  Singleton,  .37  Ala.  412,  416  ;  .Stewart,  5G  Me.  300,  301  ; 
WoodruS  ['.  Cox,  2  Bradf.  153, 155. 

12  Kavanaugh  v.  Tliompson,  16  Ala.  817,  823. 

13  Kavanaugh  r.  Thompson,  16  Ala.  817,  823  :  Wood  r.  Chetwood, 
27  N.  J.  Eq.  311.  313  ;  Scott  v.  Gamble,  9  N.  .1.  Eq.  218,  238 ;  Woodruff 
V.  Cox,  2  Bradf.  153,  155;  Lindsay,  1  Desaus.  Eq.  150,  153;  Gates  v. 
Whetstone,  8  S.  C.  244,  247  ;  28  Am.  Rep.  284  ;  Airhart  v.  Murphy,  32 
Tex.  131,  VU. 

14  Yates  V.  Clark,  56  Miss.  212,  216;  Cassedj'  r.  Jackson,  45  Miss. 
397,  401. 

15  Wood  V.  Storv,  3  DeGex,  F.  &  .T.  125,  126  ;  Whitaker  v.  Wright, 
m  Ark.  511,  51(i ;  Tpsohemacher  )•.  Thompson,  18  Cal.  II,  20  ;  Duhnc  i\ 
Young.  3  Bush,  343,  :t47  ;  Frv  v.  Kimball,  13  Mo.  9,  H),  20;  Roberts  i'. 
Place,  IH  N.  H.  isn,  184  ;  Field  v.  Torrey,  7  Vt.  3r2,  387. 

16  Fry  v.  Kimball,  16  Mo.  0,  20. 

17  Pemberton  v.  Chapman,  El.  B.  ,fc  E.  1058, 1067  ;  ante,  §  483. 

18  Bussel,  5  Coke,  27  6  ;  Pemberton  v.  Chapman,  El.  E.  &  R.  1056, 
1038  ;  ante,  (!  433. 

19  Pemberton  v.  Chapman,  EL  B.  &  E.  1056,  1067. 

20  Roberts  i'.  Place,  13  N.  H.  183, 184. 

21  Wankford,  1  Salk.  306. 

22  Smith,  21  Beav.  .385,  .387  ;  Klngham  v.  Lee,  15  Sim.  .3%,  401  ; 
Kearslev  v.  Oklev,  2  Hurl.  &  C.  8S)6,  900  :  Loady  r.  Turnbnll.  Law  R. 
1  Cli.  .\pp.  4)1,  4!(S:  Derbyshire  v.  Home,  5  DeGex  &  S.  702,  70'J  ; 
Woodruff  r.  Cox,  2  Bradf.  153,  154  ;  ante,  H  66,  483. 

23  Dis3ussed  ante,  ?  68. 

24  See  Pemb°rton  v.  Chapman,  El.  B.  &  E.  1056,  1060  ;  KeLsler  v. 
Howe,  3  Ind.  263,  260 ;  supra,  n.  21. 

25  See  Adair  v.  Shaw,  1  Schoales  &  L.  243,  266. 

26  See  Pemberton  v.  Chapnrm,  EI.  B.  A  E.  1056,  1060  ;  Benvon  v. 
Gollins,  2  Bro.  C.  C.  323,  324  ;  W'oodruff  v.  Cox,  2  Bradf.  153, 1.54. 

27  Discussed  ante,  ??  .357,  368,  381. 

28  Tucker  v.  Cocke,  32  Miss.  H4, 189  ;  ante,  §  66,  n.  22. 

29  Wood  )'.  Cliatwood,  27  N.  J.  Eq.  311,  313;  ante,  U  439,  443,  483. 

30  Yard  v.  Ellard,  1  Salk.  117  ;  ante,  i  483. 

31  1  ^^'illianls  Executors,  2:?4. 

32  English  v.  McNair,  34  .\la.  40,  .50. 

33  Cutter  v.  Butler,  25  N.  H.  343,  353  ;  57  Am.  Dec.  330  ;  ante,  I  Ul. 

34  Kavanaugh  v.  Thompson,  16  Ala.  817,  823. 
So    Pannell  v.  Tayler,  1  Turn.  &  R.  96,  103. 

36  Pepperell  v.  Chamhorhiin,  27  Week.  R.  410,  411.  But  see  2  Wil- 
ILims  Executors,  965  ;  ante,  I  39, 


701  REPRESENTATIVE   CAPACITIES.  §  487 

g  487.  Married  women  as  guardians.  —  The  capacity  of 
a  married  woman  to  be  a  guardian,  and  lier  rights  and 
liabilities  as  such,  depend  on  tiie  same  principles  as  her 
capacity  to  be  executrix,  and  lier  rights  and  liabilities 
as  such.'  Wlien  the  husband's  common-law  liabilities 
exist  she  cannot  be  appointed  without  liis  consent  ;^  but 
if  appointed,  sucli  consent  is  presumed,^  and  thougli  her 
letters  may  be  I'evocable,  until  they  are  revoked  she  has 
full  autliority.*  Her  common-law  disabilities,  and  her 
consequent  incapacity  to  bind  herself  by  bond,^  does 
not  aftect  her  right  to  be  apijointed,^  for  lior  obligors 
are  liable  wliether  she  is  or  not.'  Wlien  a  female  guard- 
ian marries,  it  is  not  at  all  settled  that  even  at  common 
law  her  husband  became  guardian  in  her  i)luce,^  though 
this  has  been  asserted,^  and  her  husband  has  liabilities 
similai'  to  those  of  the  husband  of  an  executrix. i"  Even 
if  marriage  does  revoke  her  appointment,  she  may  be 
re-appointed, '*  as  above.  There  seems  to  be  no  good 
reason  for  supposing  that  marriage  revokes  the  autlior- 
ity  of  a  guardian  ;  to  the  objection  that  she  should  not 
be  able  to  expose  her  husband  to  additional  liabilities 
without  his  consent, '^  it  inay  bo  said  that  he  consents 
to  this  by  marrying  a  guardian  ;  '^  to  the  objection  that 
she  cannot  bind  herself  by  bond,"  it  may  be  replied, 
that  the  original  bond  continues  of  full  eticct  in  spite  of 
her  marriage  ;  ^^  and  the  objections  that  she  cannot  keep 
her  funds  .separate  from  her  husband,"^  and  that  she 
cannot  l)e  so  easily  held  personally  liable, ^^  apply 
equally  to  her  being  appointed  guardian.  iSo  that,  in 
Maryland,  for  example,  whore  there  is  no  statute  relat- 
ing to  this  subject,  the  marriage  of  a  female  guardian 
would  not  affect  her  rights  as  guardian  at  all ;  '^  her 
authority  Avould  not  cease,  a  new  bond  would  not  be 
necessary,  and  her  husband  would  not  have  any  right 
to  interfd'e  with  her  guardianship. 


I   487  KKPRESENTATIVE   CAPACITIES,  702 

1  Discussed  ante,  i  430. 

2  Palmar  ".  Oakley,  2  Doug.  (Mich.)  433,  463  ;  47  Am.  Dec.  41 ;  Jar- 
rett  V.  Stale,  l  Gill  &.  J.  27,  2S. 

3  See  English  r.  McNalr,  34  Ala.  40,  48. 

4  Palmei-  v.  Oaklej",  2  Doug.  (Mich.)  433,  4G0,  4fin  ;  47  Aui.  Dec.  41. 

5  English  v.  McNair,  34  Ala.  40,  51 ;  Jarrett  v.  State,  5  Gill  &  J. 
27,  2S. 

G    Jarrett  ?■.  State,  5  Gill  &  J.  27,  28. 

7  See  Spitz  v.  Bank,  8  Lea,  (v41,  fi43  ;  ante,  i  368. 

8  Allen  v.  JleCullough,  2  Heisk.  174,  l'J2  ;  5  Am.  Rep.  :7. 

9  Martin  v.  Foster,  38  Ala.  6S8,  630  ;  Field  i'.  Torrey,  7  Vt.  372,  :!S7. 
See  Lindsaj  ,  1  Desaus.  Eq.  150.  153. 

10  Allen  11.  McCullough,  2  Heisk.  174,  193 ;  6  Am.  Kcp.  27  ;  ante, 
?  4S6. 

U  Gornell,  1  Beav.  348  ;  Allen  v.  McCullough,  3  Jleisk.  171,  192;  5 
Am.  Rep.  27  ;  Field  v.  Torrey.  7  Vt,  372,  ;«7  (by  statute). 

12  See  ante,  U  4S3,  48fi. 

13  Woodruff  i'.  Co.x;,  2  Bradf.  153,  154. 
H    Jarrett  v.  State,  5  Gill  &  J.  27,  28. 

15  Ante,  'U  67,  365. 

16  Field  r.  Torrey,  7  Vt.  372,  387. 

17  SeeaHte,5HS3, 4SC. 

IS  See  Binnerm!'.'!  v.  Weaver,  8  Md.  517,  521  ;  Jarrett  v.  State,  5 
Gill  &  J.  27,  2J;  Palmer  v.  Oakley,  2  Doug.  (Mich.;4;j:J,  470;  47  Am. 
Doc.  41. 


IKDEX, 


IIN^DEX. 


[References  are  to  sections.] 

Abandonment,  of  domicile,  g  29. 

of  homestead,  326, 

of  husband  by  wife  bars  dower,  269. 

of  wife  by  husband,  generally,  60,  90,  91,  167,  332; 
effect  of,  on  wife's  status,  332  ;  wife's  agency,  90  ; 
husband's  right  in  wife's  personalty,  167. 
Abatement.    See  Suits. 

of  suits  of  married  women,  77,  79,  340,  434. 
Abduction,  suit  for,  78  ;  evidence  of  wife,  5(», 
Absence,   agency  of  wife  during  husband's,   90 ;    wife 

head  of  family  during  husband's,  60,  90, 
Acceptance,  by  a  married  woman,  385,  391, 
Account,  wife's  right  to  make  husband,  42,  .i3, 

wliether  married  woman  liable  to,  66,  91,  381,  483. 
Accretion,    See  Increase. 

separate  property  acquired  by,  227. 
Accumulations,    See  Increase. 

of  earnings,  65. 

of  equitable  separate  property,  209. 

of  statutory  separate  property,  227,    -^ 

of  business,  87,  468-170,  475. 

efre(H  tJirough  assistance  of  husband,  87, 
Acknowledgment,  of  married  woman's  deed,  400,  401. 
Acquiescence.    See  Silence,  Gift,  Presumption. 

implied  gift  to  husband  from,  42,  65,  127,  129,  132, 
209,  213. 

wife  estopped  by,  when,  213,  417. 

wife's  appointment  of  agent  by,  84,  121,  213. 
Acquisition,  of  domicile,  29. 

of  equitable  separate  property,  197-201. 

of  statutory  separate  property,  220-231. 

marriage  contract  as  to  sulisequent,  27,  28. 

law  of  domicile  as  to  subsequent,  27,  28, 
Action.    See  Suits,  Choses  in  Action,  Cause  of  Ac- 
tion. 


706  INDEX. 

Acts.    See  Stattttes,  Contracts,  Torts,  e^^c. 

Actual  domicile,  defined,  27,  29. 

Adequacy,  of  consideration  on   postnuptial  settlement, 

100. 
Administrator,  wife  of,  no  dower,  252. 

married  woman  as,  48(5. 
Adverse  possession,  between  husband  and  wife,  119. 

against  dowress,  290. 
Adultery,  of  wife,  efltect  on  dower,  269. 

of  wife,  gives  husband  right  of  action,  59,  79. 
a  matrimonial  offense,  49. 
Affection.    See  Enticement,  Love. 
Affirmance.    See  Confirmation. 
Agency,  in  law  and  in  fact,  82. 
conjugal,  discussed,  82-98. 
Age.    See  Infant. 

Agent,  liusband  as  wife's,  84-89  ;  in  law  and  in  fact,  82, 
84;   appointment  of,  84;   scope  of  authority,  85; 
proof  of  authority,  86;   compensation,  87;   effect 
of  fraud,  87 ;  special  instances  and  illustrations, 
88,  121 ;  in  business,  87,  475,  480. 
wife  as  husband's,  89-98 ;  in  law  or  in  fact,  82,  89  ; 
appointment  of,  89;  effect  of  husband's  absence, 
inability,  etc.,  90  ;  illustrations  of  want  of  author- 
ity, 91 ;   scope  of  authority,  92 ;  in  business,  93, 
469,  479 ;  or  household,  90,  94  ;  for  necessaries,  95, 
96;  proof  of  authority,  97;   determination,  revo- 
cation, etc.,  of  authority,  98 ;  on  tort,  60,  423 ;  in 
contract,  07,  409  ;  in  wills,  348. 
of  married  woman,  generally,  84,  223,  364,  .389,  475. 
married  woman  as,  generally,  89,  303,  469,  479,  484. 
Agreement.    See  Settlement,  Contract,  etc. 
to  sell  or  convey,  206,  373,  376,  380,  407. 
to  ]Hirchaso,  223,  373,  380,  383. 
as  to  dower,  266,  267. 

between  husband  and  wife,  40-46,  97-134,  367. 
Alien,  dower  of,  249. 

curtesy  of,  152. 
Alienation.'   See  Conveyance,  Deed,  Forms,  etc. 

restraints  on,  in  mai-riage  settlements,  204. 
Alimony.    See  "Stewart  on  Marriage  and  Divorce." 
Allowance,  by  wife  to  husband,  42. 

by  liusl)and  to  wife,  98  ;  as  pin  money,  188. 
Alteration,  of  married  woman's  deed,  408. 
Ambulatory,  whether  married  woman's  will  is,  352. 


IXDKX.  707 

Amount,  of  equity  to  a  settlement,  lOG. 

awarded  in  lieu  of  dower,  294. 
Annuities,  husband's  rights  over  Avife's,  182, 

dower  in,  253. 
Answer.    See  Suit. 

married  woman's  separate,  211,  401. 
Antenuptial,  settlement,  40. 

contraets  between  husband  and  wife,  44,  26(5 ;  as  to 
residence,  60  ;  as  to  marriage  rights,  266  ;  cftect  of, 
on  conflict  of  laws,  20,  28. 

guardianship  of  married  woman,  487. 

executorship  of  married  Avoman,  487. 

contracts  of  married  women,  44,  67,  365. 

torts  of  married  women,  66,  422. 

wills  of  married  women,  352. 

trade  of  married  women,  464,  466;  partnership, 
480. 

suits  of  married  women,  430. 
Anticipation,  restraints  on,  204. 
Apparel,  ownership  of  wife's,  120,  127,  186,  187. 
Appearance,  of  married  woman  in  suits,  211,  452,  460,461, 

462. 
Appointment,  of  husband  as  wife's  agent,  84. 

of  wife  as  husband's  agent,  89. 

of  married  woman's  attorney  at  law,  462. 

of  executor  by  married  wonian,  344. 

of  married  woman  as  guardian,  executor,  etc.,  482, 
486,  487. 

equitable,  under  powers,  205,  206. 
Arbitration,  husband's  submission  of  Avifo's  rights  to,  85  ; 
as  reduction  to  possession,  ISO. 

wife's  submission  to,  388. 
Arrears,  of  pin  money,  189. 

Arson,  wife  ])nrning  husband's  house  not,  14,  49. 
Articles  of  the  peace,  Avife's  right  to,  48,  56,  73. 
Assault  and  battery.    See  Torts. 

betAA'een  husband  and  Avife,  48,  49,  53.  63  ;  testimony 
in  suits  for,  56. 

Avife's  right  of  action  for,  is  property,  219,  230. 
Assessments,  against  stock  held  by  married  Avomen,  .390. 
Assignee,  bona  fide,  for  value  takes  free  of  fraud  or  trust, 
45,  110,  132,  385;  right  to  imjjeach  deed  against, 
376,  405. 

contract  of  married  woman  in  hands  of,  368, 
Assigned  doAyer,  incidents  of,  264. 


Assignment,   of   contract  between   husband   and  wife, 
44. 

of  insurance  policy,  133. 

deed  of,  of  married  woman,  394,  408. 

of  liusband  as  reduction  to  possession,  181. 

by  husband  of  his  personalty,  140,  301. 
Assignment  of  dower.    See  Dower. 

widow's  right  to,  263,  283. 

who  .must  assign,  284. 

without  suit,  285 ;   of  and  against  common  right, 
285. 

by  suit,  286-288  ;  at  common  law,  286  ;  at  law  under 
statutes,  287  ;  in  equity,  288. 

proof  of  right  to  assignment,  289. 

estoppels  against  defendant,  290. 

in  mansion  house,  291. 

by  metes  and  bounds,  292. 

in  rents  and  profits,  293. 

in  gross  sum,  294. 

in  improvements,  295. 

damages  at  law,  296. 

mesne  profits  in  equity,  297. 

effect  of,  298. 

excessive,  299. 

new,  300. 
Assumpsit,  against  married  women,  66,  91,  381,  483. 
Attorney  at  law,  husband  as  agent  to  employ  for  wife, 
m,  67,  85,  462,  463. 

wife's,  234,  239,  372,  389,  462,  463. 

compensation  of  wife's,  463. 
Attorney  in  fact.    See  Agent. 

Avife  may  join  in  deed  with  husband's,  271. 

wife's,  cannot  make  deed,  271,  406. 
Authority.    See  Agent. 

of  luisljand  to  act  for  wife,  82,  84  ;  scope  of,  85. 

of  wife  to   act  for  hvisband,  89,  91 ;   scope  of,   90, 
92. 
Award,  against  married  woman,  388. 
Badges  of  fraud.    See  Fraud. 

in  dealings  between  Imsband  and  wife,  112. 
Banishment,  of  husband  makes  wife  a/emme  sole,  342. 
Bank  acts,  how  far  affect  liabilities  of  married  women, 

13,  .369. 
Bank  deposits,  in  names  of  husband  and  wife,  128. 

husband's  right  to  draw  wife's,  169. 


INDEX.  709 

Bankruptcy,  husband's  assignment   in,  does  not  carry 
wife's  chose-s  in  action,  181. 

of  husband  as  discharge  of  wife's  joint  liability, 
67,  :!82. 

of  husband  gives  dower  when,  282. 

conveyance  by  husband  to  wife  as  an  act  of,  114. 

wife's  testimony  in,  proceedings  against  husband,  5(5. 
Barring  curtesy,  discussed,  159. 
Barring  dowor,  discussed,  265-283, 
Barring  equity  to  settlement,  discussed,  194. 
Bastardy,  statute  as  to,  does  not  include  married  women, 

13. 
Beating  wife,  civil  liability  of  husband  for,  47. 

criminal  liability  of  husband  for,  -IS. 
Bequest,  to  married  women  at  common  law,  174. 

projierty  acquired  by,  225.  , 
Bills.    See  Notes. 

Bill  of  sale,  between  husband  and  Avife,  120, 121. 
Birth  of  issue,  necessary  to  curtesy,  154. 

not  necessary  to  dowor,  249. 
Blank  deed,  of  married  woman  Avhen  valid,  270,  3(>4,  400, 

402,  407,  412.    ' 
Bonds,  are  choscs  in  action,  171 . 

husband's  rights  in  wife's,  173. 

wife's  separate,  219,  229. 

w'fe's  liability  on,  384. 

of  conveyance  of  maiTied  women,  206,  407. 
Both,  husband's  and  wife's  property  discussed,  302-330. 
Breach  of  trust,  by  married  women,  6(3,  91,  213,  483,  485. 
Burden  of  proof,  on  wife  to  show  gift  from  husband,  65, 119. 

in  wife  to  show  her  title,  119,  132,  232. 

on  party  asserting  married  woman's  liability,  237, 
357,  431. 
Business.    See  Trade. 

wife  as  liusband's  agent  in,  93,  469,  479. 

husband  as  wife's  agent  in,  86,  87,  475,  480. 

whe^lier  apparently  joint,  is  that  of  husband  or  of 
wife,  87,  93,  97,  119,  129,  ■x(j9;  or  of  both,  480. 
Cancellation  of  contract,  wife's  suit  against  husband  for,  53, 
Capacities  of  married  women.    See  Status.  ^ 

statutes  as  to,  strictly  construed,  12. 

depend  on  law  of  domicile,  30,  35. 

generally,  331-339. 

to  hold  "property  at  common  law,  137;  :',n  equity, 
197-210  ;  under  statutes,  217-243. 

H.  <fe  W.-60, 


710  INDEX. 

Capacities  of  married  women —  Continued. 

to  will,  50,  51,  208,  240,  310-35i. 

to  deed,  205,  23(3,  394-408. 

to  contract,  40-46,  355-393. 

to  be  surety,  134. 

to  be  estopped,  409-420. 

to  commit  torts,  421-425. 

to  commit  crimes,  426,  427. 

to  sue  and  be  sued,  428-163. 

to  trade,  4(i4-481. 

to  act  in  representative  capacity,  4S2-487. 
Case.    .See  Torts,  Suits. 

ac'.ion  on  the,  for  crim.  con.  79. 
Causa  mortis,  gift  by  married  woman,  127,  350. 

};ift  by  liusban'd  to  wife,  127. 
Caus3S  of  action,  in  suits  by  married  women,  442. 

in  suits  against  married  women,  453. 
Certificate,  to  married  v.oman's  deed,  401. 

pnina  facie  evidence  only,  376,  401. 
Change,  of  domicile,  28,  32. 

of  possession  between  husband  and  wife,  120. 

of  realty  into  personalty'',  127,  136,  226. 
Charges  in  equity,  against  equitable  separate  property, 
206,  207  ;  lujwV'uforced,  211. 

against  statutorv  separate   property,  235,  238,  371 ; 
how  enf<)reed,"^242,  371. 
Chastise,  husband's  right  to,  wife,  63. 
Chattels.    8ee  Personalty. 
Chattels  real.    See  Personalty,  Realty,  Lease. 

husband's  rights  in  wife's,  145. 

entireties  in,  303. 
Checks,  are  not  delivery,  128. 

husliand's,  on  wife's  funds,  169. 

for  deposits  by  husband  and  wife,  128. 
Child.    See  Parent  and  Child. 

defined,  1. 

right  to  equity  of  settlement,  192. 

birth  of,  essential  to  curtesy,  154;  not  essential  to 
dower,  249. 
Chose  in  action,  defined,  171  ;  chattels  out  of  possession 
as,  172;  bonds,  stocks,  notes,  etc,  as,  173;  lega- 
cies, etc.,  as,  174  ;  remainders,  possibilities,  etc., 
as,  175 ;  ex  contractu,  44,  219,  229 ;  e.c  delicto,  219, 
230. 

husband's  rights  in  wife's,  176  ;  not  vested,  22. 


pi 


INDEX.  711 

Chose  in  action —  Confinued. 

wife's  rights  in,  at  common  law,  17G ;  under  stat- 
utes, 210.  229.  230.  * 
are  "property,"  4-1,  219,  229,  230. 
Citizenship,  of  v.ifo  of  citizen,  39. 
Civil  dama;jo  acts,  wife's  rlcclits  under,  77,  80. 
Civil  death,  effect  of  husband's,  on  wife'^  capacities,  334. 
effect  of  wife's,  on  husliand's  curtesy,  ITiG. 
effect  of    marria.ire  like,   as    to  married  Avoman's 
capacities,  3"^,  119. 
Civil  law,  a-;  basis  for  law  in  United  States,  7. 

as  to  unity  of  husband  and  wife,  38 
Civil  wrongs.    8oo  Torts. 

between  hus]:)and  and  wife, 47,  48. 
Clerk.    See  Aoext. 

of  married  women,  84,  223,  864,  475. 
husband  as  wife's,  87. 
Clothing,  a-i  paraphernalia,  18G. 

as  necessaries  90,  94,  9'. 
Co-contractors,  with  married  women  liable,  223,  368. 
Codes,  as  basis  of  law  in  the  United  States,  7. 
Codicil.    See  Wilt.. 

of  married  Avoman,  353. 
Coercion,  of  wife  by  husband,  e:enerally,  62,  66,  68,  110, 
121,  213,  331,  417  ;  as  to  torts,  66,  423  ;  as  to  crimes, 
68,  427;  as  to  estoppel,  121,213,417;  with  fraud, 
40,  110,  133,  134,  213,  384,  405. 
Cohabitation,  marriage  duty  of,  11,  59. 
Comity,  forei'^n  law  recop:nized  by,  21. 
Common  courts,  married  woman's  liability  on,  381. 
Common  law.    See  prts-snn. 

a-s  basis  of  law  in  United  States,  6,  8,  9. 
Common  property,  of  husband  and  wnfe,  302-311 ;  dower 

in,  254;  curtesy  in,  155. 
Common  rocovery,  conveyance  by,  394. 
Community  proporty,  of  'husband  and   wife,  ponerally, 
312-319;  where  system  e::ists,  7,313;   con:lic    of 
laws  as  to,  319;  history  of,  312;  statutes  relafin.T 
to,  described,  313  ;  Avhat  is,  31 1;  husband's  ricrh^  5 
over,  315  ;  wife's  ricrhts  over,  316  ;  creditor's rinrhts 
over.  317 ;  effect  of  divorce  or  doa!^h,  318. 
Compensation,  contract  for,  between  husband  and  wife, 
65,  82,  475. 
of  husband  as  wife's  aprent,  87. 
of  married  wor:ion'a  attcrncys,  433  ;  agents,  389. 


712  INDEX. 

Competency.    See  Witness,  Evidence. 

of  husband  and  wire  to  testify.  50. 

to  testify  depends  on  la-w  of  forum,  35. 
Compromise,  of  married  woman's  claims,  85,  388. 
Con(Utional  estates,  dower  in,  254. 
Conditions,  bindinij;  on  married  v.omen,  223,254. 
Confidential     communications,     between     husband    and 

wife,  5(3. 
Confirmation,  of  married  women's  contracts,  366,  368. 

of  married  Avomen's  deeds,  23,  339,  402-404. 

of  deed  by  infant  married  woman,  339. 

of  husband's  agency  by  wife,  84. 

of  wife's  agency  by  Jiusband,  89,  93,  94. 

of  marriage  bylegisla' ure,  23. 
Conflict  of  laws,  m'eanmg  of  phrase,  10,  19,  24,  26. 

past  and  present  law,  19-23. 

home  and  foreign  laws,  24-37. 

as  to  husband's  estate  Jure  uxor  is,  33. 

as  to  curtesy,  33. 

as  to  dower,  m,  248,  275. 

a-5  to  election,  274,  275. 

as  to  community  property,  310. 

as  to  married  women's  contracts,  37,  377. 

as  to  married  women's  wills,  36,  354. 

as  to  status,  30. 

as  to  immovables,  33. 

as  to  movables,  31. 

as  to  acts,  34. 

as  to  procedure,  35. 
Congress,  no  power  to  pass  marriage  laws,  9. 
Conjugal  agency,  discussed,  82-98. 
Conjugal  kindness,  defined,  58. 
Conjugal  rights  and  obligations,  discussed,  57-81, 
Consent.    See  Agency,  Contract,  Joinder,  etc. 

of  husband  to  wife's  will,  348  ;  trade,  469 ;  contracts, 
238,  371 ;  convevances,  203,  213,  214  ;  estoppel  bv, 
419. 

<  if  wife  to  husband's  using  her  property,  42,  87. 
Consideration,  in  dealings  between  husband  and  wife, 
40, 104-1  OS  ;  necessity  of,  104  ;  absence  of,  as  fraud, 
lOij ;  kinds  of,  105  ;  inarriage  as,  44  ;  cohabitation 
as,  59 ;  release  of  dower,  etc.,  as,  105,  271;  ade- 
quacy of,  lOl;  effect  of ,  107;  proof  of  a  ditferent, 
from  tha*^  stated,  lOS. 

valuable,  defined,  105. 


I 


IXDKX.  713 

Coasideratioa —  Continued. 

good,  defined,  g^  105,  lOS. 

sufficiency  of  moral,  SiW, 

none  presumed  in  quit-claim  deed,  108. 

for  contract  of  suretyship,  l.i4. 

married  woman  need  restore,  when,  2G7,  333. 
Conspiracy,  by  husband  and  wife,  G8. 
Constitutional    provisions,    against   retrospective    laws, 

•n. 

self-executing,  218. 
Construction  of  statutes.    See  Ruizes,  ere. 

general  rules,  11-18. 

retrospeclive  and  prospective,  17,  20,  65,  67, 268,  308, 
37S. 

local  and  foreign,  18. 

as  to  contracts  between  Iiusband  and  wife,  43. 

as  to  married  women's  contracts,  359,  378. 
Constructive  possession,  as  between  husband  and  wife, 

119,  120,  1(J»,  \m. 
Consumniato,  dower,  2(j3,  264. 

curtesy,  151,  156. 
Contempt,  married  woman  guilty  of,  211. 
Contracts  between  husband  and  wife,  discussed,  40-46, 
9it-134,  367 ;  causes  afi'ecting  validity  of,  40,  101  ; 
at  common  law,  41 ;  in  equity,  42 ;  vmder  stat- 
utes, 14,  15,  43,  87,  267,  3(37,  479;  antenuptial, 
44,  26<3;  forms  of,  102,  103;  consideration  in, 
104-108 ;  fraud  in,  10[>-112,  121 ;  remedies  on,  122- 
124. 

particular  kinds  of,  125-134 ;  deeds,  43,  102,  125 ; 
jointure,  126,  267 ;  parol  gifts,  127 ;  delivery  of, 
120;  bank  deposits,  128;  seiwic^s,  65,  87,  130; 
earnings,  65 ;  compensation,  87 ;  execution  of 
powers,  203. 
Contracts  of  married  womoa,  discussed,  355-408. 

liability  oi  husband  for,  14,  67,  238,  371. 

liability  of  wife  on  antenuptial,  67,  365,  453. 

home  and  foreign  law  as  to,  37,  377. 

present  and  past  law  as  to,  22,  378. 

generally  invalid,  206,  357  ;  void,  not  voidable,  368 ; 
cannot  bo  conflrmed,  366,  368 ;  no  estoppel 
through,  415  ;  wife  may  sue  on,  when,  368. 

exceptional  validity  of,  at  common  law,  358. 

validity  of,  in  equity,  206,  207,  360,  368,  371. 

as  to  equitable  separate  i^roperty,  206,  207,  360. 


714  IXD7-.X. 

Contracts  of  married  vomon — Continued. 

validity  of,  under  statutes,  i^^  43,  361,  3G9-37S  a  ;  gen- 
eral acts  not  mentioning  married  women,  13,  3(39  ; 
married  women's  separate  property  acts,  237- 
23<),  362,  370-373;  in  equity  as  charges,  238,  362, 
371  ;  under  implied  powers,  372 ;  under  express 
powers,  373 ;  "  with  respect "  to,  etc.,  i)roperty, 
239,  373  ;  statutes  authorizing  certahi  e(jntracts, 
374 ;  statutes  prohibiting  certain  contracts,  374  ; 
statutes  authorizing  contracts  of  married  women, 
generally,  373  ;  statutes  requiring  formalities,  376  ; 
statutes  authorizing  trade,  475,  479. 

estoppel  through,  415. 

property  acquiix'd  by,  229. 

special  kinds  of,  379-393 ;  in  personam  and  in  rem, 
379;  executory  and  executed,  380;  exjiress  and 
implied,  3S1 ;  with  husband,  40-46;  jointly  with 
liusband,  382 ;  antenuptial,  07,  365  ;  made  through 
agents,  364  ;  purchases  and  sales,  223,  383  ;  cove- 
nants and  bonds,  334  ;  promissory  notes,  223,  375, 
385 ;  releases  and  receipts,  386 ;  leases,  147,  224, 
233.  234,  239,  372,  337;  for  repairs,  238,  239,  371, 
372,  387 ;  for  family  expenses,  387 ;  cultivation, 
239;  arbitration,  388 ;  for  emiiloyment  of  agents, 
etc.,  389,  433;  as  agent,  363,  483;  as  stockholder, 
390,  481;  as  trader,  .392,  475,  479;  as  corpor- 
ator, 481 ;  as  surety,  134,  391 ;  for  insurance,  etc., 
393;  deeds,  394-408;  powers  of  attorney,  406; 
agreements  to  eonvev,  206,  373,  376,  380,  407 ; 
agreements  to  buy,  223\  373,  380,  383. 
Control,  of  wife  by  huslxmd,  60,  110. 

of  equitable  sex^arate  property  hy  wife,  203 ;  l)y 
husband,  212. 

of  statutorv  separate  property  by  wife,   233 ;   by 
husband,"  243. 
Conversion,  of  realty  into  personalty,  etc.,  31,  33, 127, 136, 

226,  261,  280 ;  by  husband  and  Avife,  66. 
Conveyances.    See  Deeds,  Disposition. 

defective,  how  cured,  23,  402-404. 

between  husljand  and  wife,  41,  42,  125. 

by  married  women  generally,  897-408  ;  of  equitable 
separate  property,  204,  208,  376,  397 ;  of  statutory 
separate  i^roperty,  236, 376, 398;  at  common  law,  376. 
Coparcanary  estates,  dower  in,  254. 

curtesy  in,  155. 


I 


INDEX.  715 

Corporation,  shares  in,  iinmovablo  property,  ?  33. 
shares  iu,  whether  reaUy,  2.5.3. 
shares  in,  c hoses  in  action,  173. 
Corporator,  married  woman's  capacity  to  be,  3S1. 
Corpus  or  realty,  married  woman's  powers  over,  20."),  20(3, 

231),  372,  37(i,  397,  398. 
Coats,  in  married  women's  suits,  437,  46'^. 
Cotflnants,  liusband  and  wife  as,  302-311. 
Coimsel,  wife's,  emiiloyed  by  husband,  (iO,  67,  S.5,  402,  4113; 
by  wife,  234,  239,  372,  389,  4()2,  40;i ;  contpeusation 
of,  'ML 
Cotmsdl  fo33,  in  married  women's  suits,  437,  403. 
Country.    Nee  Conflict  of  I^aws. 
Covenants,  of  married  women,  37-i,  384,  412;  for  rent,  53. 

estoppel  by,  iu  deeds,  412. 
Coverture.    See  Capacity,  Status,  etc. 
detined,  38,  331. 

etiectof,  generally,  331-339  ;  on  pi'operty  rights,  184 ; 
on  personal  rights,  57-81 ;  on  iJersonai  status,  .331 ; 
on   wills,  340 ;    on  conti^acts,  350 ;    on  estoppels, 
410 ;  on  torts,  421 ;  on  crimes,  420 ;  on  suits,  431 ; 
on  trade,  465. 
and  infancy,  339. 
plea  of.  411,  4.55,  457. 
Cradit,  wife's  pledge  of  husband's,  64. 

husband  not  liable  when  all,  given  to  wife,  89,  93, 

94,  206. 
married  woman's  purchase  on,  223,  239,  372,  383. 
married  woman's  trade  on,  468,  475. 
Creditor,  relation  of  debtor  and,  between  husband  and 

wife,  45. 
Creditors,  fraud  on  husbands,  in  dealings  between  hus- 
band and  wife,  40,  41,  105-118. 
wlio  are.  115. 

rights  of,  wlien  vested,  65,  67. 
remedies  of,  124. 

husband's  riglits  to  wife'.s  earnings,  65  ;  to  mingled 
Ijroperty,  129 ;  to  inri-e;isc  of  wife's  property  on 
whicli  liusband  has  labored,  87;  in  wife's  person- 
alty, 170  ;  choses  in  action,  177;  equitable  .sepa- 
rate property,  212;  statutory  sepai-ate  property, 
243;  community,  316,  317  ;  libmestead,  330;  busi- 
ness, 476,  477. 
as  again.st  husband's,  wife  must  prove  her  title,  119, 
223. 


716  IXDEX. 

Creditors  —  Con  tinned . 

remedies  of  wife's,  against  her,  H  211,  241,  242,  372, 
379,  47G. 
Crimes,  between  husband  and  wife,  49. 

of  married  women,  68,  426,  427  ;  husband's  liability 
for,  68 ;  wife's  liability  for,  426;   proof  of  wife's 
guilt,  427. 
Crim.  con..,  husband's  stait  for,  79. 
Crop,  of  wife's  separate  lands,  is  hers,  87,  227. 
Cruelty,  wife's  right  against  husband  for,  47,  48,  49 

husband's  right  against  wife  for,  49. 

wife  whipping  is,  63. 
Cultivation,  married  women's  contracts  for,  239,272,  273. 

as  farming,  465,  475. 
Curative  acts,  validity  of,  23,  376,  403. 
Curtesy,  discussed,  1*51-162. 

defined,  151. 

distinguished    fi'om    estate    jure    nxoris,    143,   146, 
151. 

requisites  of,  152 ;  marriage,  153 ;  birth  of  issue,  154 ; 
seisin,  155 ;  death,  156. 

on  what  property  it  exists,  157. 

incidents  of,  estate,  158. 

initiate,  151,  158  ;  whether  a  vested  estate,  22,  162. 

consummate,  151,  158, 

how  barred,  159. 

effect  of  statutes  on,  161 ;  married  women  property 
acts,  162. 

etfect  of  agreement  on,  159. 

ettect  of  wife's  will  on,  162,  344. 
Custody,  husband's  riglit  to,  of  wife,  62. 
Custom,  trade  of  married  women  by,  467. 

deeds  of  married  women  by,  270. 
Damages,  wife's  right  to,  against  husband,  47,  48. 

as  wife's  separate  proj^erty,  230. 

wife's  liability  in,  375. 

in  suits  for  torts  by  wife,  77. 

in  suits  for  enticement,  78. 

in  suits  for  crim.  con.,  79. 

in  suits  for  dower,  296. 

husband's  right  to,  against  wife,  48. 

husband's  right  to,  consecjuential,  77, 
Dealings  between  husband  and  wife,  discussed,  99-134. 
Dealings  of  husband  for  wife,  discussed,  82-88, 
Dealings  of  wife  for  husband,  discussed,  89-98. 


I 


INDEX.  717 

Dealings  of  wife  in  trade,  discussed,  ??  473-481. 
Death,  law  at  time  of,  fixes  right  of  heir,  devisee,  etc., 
20,  2-2,  31,  32,  36,  50,  248,  354. 
as  a  requisite  of  curtesy,  156. 
as  a  requisite  of  dower,  251. 

effect  of,  on  estate  by  entireties,  306;  community 
property,  318;  wife's  choses  in  action,  44,  55,  170, 
176 ;  wife's  suits,  56,  434 ;  on  estate  Jure  uxoris, 
146 ;  on  equitable  separate  property,  214 ;  on 
clauses  against  alienation,  204 ;  on  marriage  es- 
tate generally,  138. 
effect  of  husband's,  on  wife's  will,  353 ;  on  wife's 
contract,  368. 
Debtor  and  creditor.    See  Creditors, 

husband  and  wife  as,  42,  45. 
Debts,  wife's  assumption  of  husband's,  134. 

do  not  include  claims  for  torts,  66. 
Deceit.    See  Fraud. 

Decisions  collected,  as  to  contract  between  husband  and 
wife,  46. 
as  to  wife's  suretyship,  134. 
as  to  necessaries,  96. 
as  to  contracts  of  married  women,  378  a. 
Declaration,  of  wife  as  husband's  agent,  56. 
of  husband  as  wife's  agent,  86. 
in  married  women's  suits,  442,  453. 
Declaratory  of  existing  law,  statutes,  how  construed,  12, 

16,  43,  345. 
Dedication  to  public  uses,  effect  of,  on  dower,  278. 
Deeds,  of  separation,  40,  42. 
of  settlement,  125. 

in  fraud  of  creditors,  99-124  ;  do  not  carry  property 
previously    assigned    in    fraud,    100 ;    a   Avife's 
choses  in  action,  181. 
of  infant  married  woman,  335,  339. 
effect  of,  to  husband  and  wife  jointlj',  304. 
of  married  women,  394—108 ;  at  common  law,  376, 
394 ;   when  abandoned  by  husband,  358  ;   under 
statutes,  395 ;  of  dower,  270-272,  396  ;  of  equitable 
sep?rate  property,  205,  376,  397 ;  of  statutory  sepa- 
rate property,  236,  376,  398 ;  joinder  of  husband, 
399 ;  acknowledgment,  certificate,  etc.,  400,   401 ; 
confirmation  of  defective  deed  by  wife,  339,  366, 
368,  402;  bv  statute,  23,  403;  by  equitv,  123,  205, 
233,  270,  2'72,  359,  368,  376,  404;  impeachment  of, 


718  INDEX. 

Deeds — Continued. 

§  405 ;   powers  of  attorney,  40G ;  agreements  for, 
407  ;  various  points  as  to,  408. 

estoppel  by,  41:i. 
Defamation,  betwceu  husband  and  wife,  4S,  49. 

1)3'  wife,  (jfJ. 

of  wife,  77. 
Defeating,  modes  of,  curtesy,  159. 

modes  of,  dower,  2i)5-2S2. 
Defective  deeds,  curing  of,  bv  party,  339,  3GQ,  368,  402  ; 
by  statute,  23,  403;  bV  equity,  1-3,  205,236,270, 
272,  359,  3(J8,  37G,  404. 
Dofensos,  against  married  women,  443-445. 

by  married  Avonien,  454-45(3 ;  how  marie,  401. 

between  husband  and  wife,  55  o. 

in  suits  for  erim.  con.,  79. 
Dafinitions,  "acquired,"  220. 

"agent,"  82. 

"child,"  1. 

"eliose  in  action,"  171. 

"conjugal  rights,"  etc.,  57. 

"contract,"  355. 

"  coverture,"  38,  331. 

"  curtesy,"  151. 

"dower!,"  244. 

"  earnings,"  465. 

"  equitable  sejjarate  property,  197. 

"  estate,"  135. 

"estates  of  husband  and  wife,"  3. 

"estopi)el,"409, 

"exchange,"  22(5. 

"/emmf  eo?'e>V,"  .38,  331. 

"general  statutes,"  12. 

"gift,"  224. 

"grant,"  224. 

"  held,"  220,  221. 

"iiousehold  furniture,"  219. 

"liusband,"  1. 

"  iini)rovements,"  295. 

"marriage,"  1. 

"  matrimonial  domicile,"  29. 

"  parent  and  child,"  1,  5. 

"personal  rights,"  219. 

"  postnuptial  settlements,"  99. 

"  property,"  44,  65,  87,  219,  222,  229,  230. 


IXDEX.  719 

Dofinitions — Continued. 

"  piiri'haso,"  'i  223. 

"retrospective,"  etc.,  19. 

"status,"  4. 

"wife,"  1,  5. 

new,  of  married  woman's  deed,  402 ;  by  husband, 
405. 
Delivery,  between  husband  and  wife,  120,  12" 

checlv  not  a,  128. 

necessary  to  a  gift,  IIS  a,  127. 
Deposits,  of  liusband  and  wife  in  bank,  128. 
Depreciation,  in  dower  lands,  295. 
Derogation  of  common  law,  statutes  in,  Ki 
Descent,  i-)roperty  acquired  by,  225. 
Desertion.    Se3  Abandonment. 
Determinable  foos,  dower  in,  254. 
Detinue,  by  wife  against  husband,  54. 
Devise,  in  lieu  of  dower,  274. 

wife's  rights  in,  174,  225. 
Disabilities.    See  Capacity,  Status,  etc. 

for  protection  of  married  women,  338. 

double,  271,  339. 
Disaffirmance,  by  infant  married  woman  of  deed,  339. 
Discharge,  of  contracts  by  marriage,  44. 

of  torts  by  marriage,  48. 
Disposition.    See  Will,,  Deed,  etc. 

riijht    of,  incidental    to   ownershiii,   205,  206,   236, 
'372. 

includes  all  kinds  of  dispositions,  372 ;  encumber- 
ing, 204,  206,  236,  238,  372. 

restraints  on  power  of,  204. 
Distributive  share,  a  chose  in  action,  169. 

husband's  rights  in  Avife's,  174,  225. 

is  "  property,"  225. 
Dividand,  on  married  woman's  stock,  to  Avhom  parable, 

83,  179. 
Divest.    See  Vested  Rights. 
Divorce.    See ''Stewart  on  Marriage  and  Divorce." 

suits,  48,  73,  434. 

eflfect  of,  on  marriage  estate  generally,  138  ;  estate 
jrire  uxoris,   146;   curtesy,  152,  159;    dower,  281; 
"entireties,  309  ;  equitable"  separate  property,  215; 
on  wife's  status,  333. 
Domestic  arrangements,  husband  regulates,  60. 

wife  as  husband's  agent  in,  94,  95,  97. 


720  INDEX. 

Domicile,  matrimonial,  defined,  §  29. 

law  of,  when  govern,';,  30,  31,  32,  36,  37. 
offec-t  of  change  of,  32. 
husband's,  is  wife's,  60. 

Donatio.    >See  Gift. 

mortis  causa  of  married  woman,  350. 

Do3,  under  civil  law,  245. 

D  J3  de  dote  peti  non  debet,  discussed,  255. 

Double  disability,  discussed,  271,  339. 

Dower,  discussed,  244-300. 

nature  and  incidents  of,  244-264  ;  defined,  244 ;  his- 
tory, 245 ;  at  common  law,  246 ;  under  statutes, 
247  ;  conliiet  of  laws  as  to,  33,  248  ;  requisites  of, 
249-252 ;  marriage  necessary  to,  250,  2"^1 ;  hus- 
band's death  necessary  to,  2.51 ;  husband's  seisin 
necessary  to,  252 ;  nature  of  property  in  which, 
may  exist,  253 ;  kinds  of  estates  subject  to,  254 ; 
out  of  dower  lands,  255  ;  in  ecjuitable  estates,  256  ; 
in  partnership  estates,  257  ;  priorities  between,  and 
other  encumbrances,  2.5S ;  and  purchase  money, 
259 ;  in  mortgaged  property,  260,  261 ;  inchoate, 
262 ;  consunmiate,  263,  264';  before  a.ssignment, 
26:3  ;  after  assignment,  2(34. 
tarring  and  defeating,  265-282 ;  general  modes  of, 
265 ;  antenuptial  agreement,  266 ;  postnuptial 
agreement,  267  ;  act  of  husband,  268  ;  act  of  wife, 
269  ;  release  of,  270-272,  396 ;  jointure,  273  ;  devise 
in  lieu  of,  274 ;  election,  275 ;  estoppel,  276 ;  lim- 
itations, 277 ;  dedication  to  public  use,  278 ; 
termination  of  husband's  estate,  279 ;  legal  pro- 
ceedings, 2S0 ;  divorce,  281;  bankruptcy  of 
husband,  282. 
assignment  of,  283-300  ;  widow's  right  to,  2S3  ;  who 
must  assign,  284 ;  without  suit,  2.85 ;  suit  at  com- 
mon law,  216  ;  suit  at  law  under  statutes,  287  ;  in 
equity,  288 ;  proof  of  right  to,  2s9 ;  estoppeLs 
against  defendant,  290 ;  in  mansion  house,  291 ; 
by  metes  and  bounds,  292;  in  rents  and  profits, 
293;  in  gross  sum,  294;  in  improvements,  295; 
in  depreciated  property,  295 ;  damages,  296 ; 
mesne  profits,  297  ;  effect  of.  298  ;  excessive,  299 : 
eviction  and  reassignment,  300. 
deed  of,  270-272,  396. 

Duality.    See  Unity. 

of  husband  and  wife  in  equity,  3S,  42. 


INDEX.  721 

Duress.    See  Coercion. 
Dwelling  house.    See  Home. 

dower  in,  ?  291. 

marriage  right  to  oocnpy,  59,  60. 
Dying  declarations,  of  husV)and  or  wife,  5f>. 
Earnings  of  married  women,  ownership  of,  generalLy,  65. 

mingled  witli  husband's,  87,  129. 

as  separate  property,  228. 

in  trade,  4t)5,  473. 

defined,  465. 
Easement,  created  by  estoppel,  416. 
Ejectment.    Sec  Suit. 

V)y  wife  against  husband,  48,  53. 

by  married  woman  to  recover  lands  seijcr'd  under 
void  judgment,  411 ;  conveyed  by  void  deed,  412. 
Election,   bv   widow,  125,  266,  267,   273,   275 ;   discussed 
fully,  275. 

by  wife  between,  holding  property  as  statutory  or 
as  equitable  separate  estate,  216. 
Elopement,  dower,  when  barred  by,  269. 
Emblements,  husband's  right  to,  in  wife's  life  estate, 
144,  147. 

husband's,  tenant's  right  to,  in  wife's  real  estate,  147. 
Eminent  domain,  right  of,  superior  to  dower,  278. 
Employment.    See  Agency,  Compensation. 

of  agent  by  married  woman,  87,  389. 

of  counsel  by  married  woiuan,  389,  463. 
Encumber,  power  to,  included  in  power  to  dispose,  204, 

372,  408. 
Encumbrance,  inchoate  dower  is,  262. 

priorities  of,  with  respect  to  dower,  258. 

wife's  separate  property  bound  by,  223. 
Endorse.    See  Indorse. 
Enforcing  rights.    See  Procedure. 
Enticement,  liusband's  right  of  action  for,  of  wife,  77. 

wife's  right  of  action  for,  of  husband,  77,  78 ;   is 
property,  219. 
Entireties,  estate  by,  discu.s.sed,  304-310. 

at  common  law,  304  ;  under  married  women's  prop- 
ertv  acts,  308 ;  under  statutes  destroving  joint 
estate,  13,  307. 

property  subject  to  estate  by,  305. 

incidents  of  estate  by,  306. 

eftect  of  dJAorce  on,  309. 

rights  of  tenants  by,  Aested,  22. 
H.  &  W.  — 61. 


Equitable  estates,  dower  in,  I  256. 

curte.sy  in,  157. 

entireties  in,  305. 

husband's  rights  in  wife's,  197,  199. 
Equitable  jointure,  discussed,  126,  266,  267,  273. 
Equitable  separate  property,  of  married  women  gener- 
ally, 197-216. 

detined,  197;  distinguished  from  statutory-,  216, 
217. 

creation  of,  199,  200 ;  the  intent  of  the  settlor  to  ex- 
clude husband,  199 ;  words  showing  tliat  intent, 
200  ;  what  husbands  are  excluded,  201. 

trustee  of,  202. 

wife's  control  over,  202 ;  restraints  on  alienation, 
203. 

disposition  of,  inter  vivos,  205,  397. 

disposition  of,  by  will,  208,  344. 

contracts  charging,  206,  207,  360,  371. 

trading  with,  468. 

rights  to  increase,  profits,  etc.,  209,  468. 

remedies  for  and  against,  210,  211. 

husband's  rights  in,  212  ;  estate  Ji<re  uxoris,  148, 149  ; 
ctirtesy,  lo/;  personaltj',  164. 

husband's  creditors'  rights  in,  212. 

how  lost,  destroyed,  etc.,  213. 

eftect  of  death  oil,  214. 

elfect  of  divorce  on,  215. 

ctiect  of  statutes  on,  216. 
Equity.    See  various  titles. 

jurisdiction  of,  over  married  women,  337  ;  married 
Avomen's  equitable  pioperty,  197-216;  married 
women's  statutory  property,  235,  371 ;  married 
women's  Avills,  343 ;  married  women's  contracts, 
42,  359,  368,  371;  married  Avomen's  deeds,  404; 
married  women's  trade,  468. 

as  to  laws  of  husband  and  wife,  8. 

as  to  unity  of  husband  and  wife,  8,  38,  44,  54,  119, 
137,  359. 

as  to  fi-aud  between  husband  and  wife,  110. 

as  to  fraudulent  convevances  from  husband  to 
Avife,  124. 

gifts  betAveen  husband  and  wife  in,  127 ;  con- 
tracts, 42. 

resulting  trusts  between  husband  and  Avife,  132. 

treats  realty  as  ijei'sonalty,  etc.,  Avhen,  136. 


INDEX.  723 

Equity —  Co'ntinucd. 

suits  of  married  women  in,  g  432  ;  asainst  husband, 

5;J. 
remedies  in  rem  in,  20(3,  211,  359. 
settlements  enforced  in,  123,  125. 
reetifviiig,    reforming,   etc.,   of    married    woman's 
eonUact  or  deed  in,  123,  205,  230,  270,  272,  359,  308, 
370,  401,  404,  407. 
statutes  declaratory  of,  12,  216. 
Equity  of  contribution,  of  dowress,  201. 
Equity  of  exoneration,  of  mai'ried  woman  surety  for  her 
husband,  134. 
of  dowress,  261. 
Equity  of  redemption,  dower  in,  256,  260,  261. 

widow's,  as  to  husband's  lands,  201. 
Eqidty  of  settlement,  wife's,  discussed,  53,  190-196. 
defined,  190. 

enforced  by  what  courts,  191. 
enforced  on  whose  apjiiication,  192. 
enforced  out  of  wiiat  property,  193. 
enforced  under  Avliat  circumstances,  194. 
on  whom  settled,  195. 
amount  of,  190. 
Escrow,  delivery  of  marriage  settlement  in,  125. 
Establishment.    See  Homi-:,  Household. 
Estates,  defined,  135. 

in  personalty',  135,  130,  303. 
distinguished  from  I'ights,  256. 
in  which  dower  exists,  254. 
in  which  curtesy  exists,  157. 
Estates  of  husband  and  wife,  defined,  3. 
discussed,  135-330. 
in  general,  135-139. 
husband's,  in  his  own  property,  140. 
husband's,  in  wife's  realtj^,  141-162  ;  in  general,  141- 

l\o;  jureuxuris,  145-150;  curtesy,  151-102. 
husband's,  in  Avife's   personalty,  "10.3-183 ;   in  gen- 
eral,   103-105;     choses     in     possession,     106-170; 
choses  in  action,  171-183. 
wife's,  in  her  ov.  n  property,  184-243 ;   in  general, 
184,  1S5  ;  paraphernalia,  186,  187  ;  pin-money,  188, 
1S9;     equity    of    settlement,    190-r.tO ;     equitable 
.separate    property,    197-210;    statutory  separate 
property,  217-243. 
wife's,  in  her  husband's  realty,  dower,  244-300. 


724 


Estates  of  husband  and  wife —  Continued. 

v.'ife's,  in  husband's  personalty,  j^  301. 

husband's  and  wife's,  in  iiroperty  of  both,  302-330  ; 
in  general,  302-311;  entireties,  304-309;  joint  and 
common,  310,  311;    communitv,  312-319;    home- 
stead, 320-330. 
Estoppel,  delincd,  409. 

of  defendant  in  dower  to  deny  husbanfl's  title,  290. 

seal  making  gift  good  by,  127. 

of  husband  from  denying  wife's  agency,  89,  98. 
Estoppels  of  married  women,  discussed,  339-31)8,  409-420. 

detined,  409,  410. 

general  rules  as  to,  410. 

by  record,  411,  457. 

by  deed,  271,  272,  412  ;  by  release,  3S6  ;  by  seal  384. 

in,  /j«/.s,  413-418  ;  delincd,  413 ;  general  rule,  414  ; 
contracts,  415  ;  false  representations,  41(3 ;  silence, 
etc.,  84,  121,  213,  417,  419  ;  torts,  418. 

acts  of  wife  in  which  husband  joins,  419. 

acts  of  wife  through  agent,  84,  475. 

by  deed  of  dower,  271,  272. 

by  acts  of  wdfo  after  discoverture,  290,  420. 
Estovers,  husband's  right  to,  147,  15S. 

dower  in,  253. 
Eviction,  from  dower  land,  300. 
Evidence.    8ee  Prksumptions,  Proof,  Witness. 

competency  of,  depends  on  law  of  forum,  35. 

husband  and  wife  a  i  v%'itnesses  for  and  against  each 
otlier,  50. 

confession  of  wife  as,  in  action  for  crim.  con.,  79. 

of  agency,  85,  86,  97. 

to  establish  relation  of  debtor  and  creditor  between 
husband  and  wife,  45. 

of  fraud,  112. 

of  right  to  dower,  289. 

possession  as,  of  title,  118  a--121. 
Ex  contractu.    See  Ciiosks  ix  Action,  Contracts. 
Ex  delicto.    See  Chosks  in  Action,  Torts. 
Ex  post  facto  laws,  discussed,  21. 

Examination,  privy,  for  married  woman  s  deed,  400. 
Excessive,  assignment  of  dower,  299. 

intei'course,  59. 
Exchange,  wife's  rights  in  her  i^roperty  acquired  by,  226 ; 
is  equivalent  to  purchase,  223. 

wife's  dower  in  husband's  lands  by,  254. 


^ 


Exocutor,  Avife's  propertj^  held  bj'  liusband  as,  §  1G8. 
husband's  co-liability  with  wife  who  is,  t)(5/48<>. 
married  woman  as,  4S6. 
Exocutory  contracts,  of  married  women  generally,  20(j, 
3S0,  407 ;  for  purchase  of  i^roperty,  223,  3fe3 ;   for 
sale  of  property,  206,  407. 
Exemption,   husband    may    convey    to    wife    projierty 
within,  laws,  118. 
laws  discussed,  320-330. 
Existing  creditors,  rights  of,  in  case  of  transfer  from  hus- 
band to  wife,  110,  113-118. 
Existing  rights,  statutes  aftecting,  20. 
Expenses,  of  married  women's  suits,  437,  463. 
Expressio  unius  est  exclusio  alterius,  discussed,  12,  16,  43, 

204,  220,  236,  345,  371,  373,  374. 
Extra  territorial  effect,  of  statutes,  30,  33. 
Fact,  agency  in,  82,  84,  85,  94,  97. 

fraud  in,  87,  112. 

seisin  in,  155,  252 

whether  business  is  wife's,  a  question  of,  87. 

to  whom  credit  given,  a  question  of,  80. 

scope  of  agent's  autliority,  a  question  of,  85. 
False  and  fraudulent  representations,  married  woman's 
liability  for,  66,  423,  424  ;  of  agent,  03. 

married  woman's  estoppel  by,  416. 

husband's  liability  for  wife's,  G6. 
Family,  husband  as  head  of,  60. 

wife  as  head  of,  90. 

expenses,  liability  for,  206,  223,  381,  387. 

home,  husband's  right  to  fix,  60. 

name,  wife's  right  to  use,  61. 
Foo-simple  estates,  dower  in,  254. 
Fees,  of  married  women's  attorneys,  372,  463, 
Femme  covort.    See  Wife,  Covektuek. 

delined,  38,  331. 
Femme  sole.    See  Capacities. 

wife  acts  as,  in  executing  powers,  205  ;  as  to  equita- 
ble separate  property,  203,  206. 

status  of  married  women  as,  332-338. 

wills  of  married  women  as,  342. 

contracts  of  married  women  as,  358,  372,  375. 

trade  of  married  women  as,  466. 
Fiction  of  unity  of  husband  and  wife,  discussed,  38,  39. 
Fine  and  recovery,  conveyance  of  married  woman   by, 

205,  3U4  ;  dower  barred  by,  270. 


72(3  INDKX. 

Food.    See  Necessaries. 

Foreign.    See  Conflict  of  Lavs. 

Forfeiture,  of  iiuirried  woman  under  general  act,  §  13. 

Formalities,  contiict  of  laws  as  to,  28. 

in  niiUTiaf:^e  settlements,  102,  103. 

as  to  contracts  and  deeds  of  married  women,  374, 
B7fj,  3'J5,  400. 

in  execution  of  married  woman's  deed,  400,  401. 

as  to  married  woman  trader,  472. 
Forum.     Sec  Pkoceduee. 

when  law  of,  governs,  35,  37,  43."). 
Fraud,  in  contracts  between  husband  and  wife,  40,  110, 
133,  134,  213,  405 ;   when,  can  be  set  up  against 
thhd  partj^  84,  110,  134. 

husband's  agency,  as  a,  87. 

retention  of  possession  by  husband  as,  121. 

of  married  women,  6G,  423,  424 ;  husband's  liability 
for,  G:i ;  as  estoppel,  270,  41G,  418. 

in  law  and  in  fact,  109. 

as  between  parties,  110. 

as  against  third  parties,  111. 

badges  of,  112. 

inadcMpuicv  of  consideration  as,  106. 
Fraudulent  conveyances.    See  Dealings. 

antenuptial,  of  husband  to  defeat  wife's  rights,  2(58. 

postnuijtial,  of  husband  to  defeat  wife's  rights,  301, 
314. 

dower  in  land  passing  by,  252. 

between  husband  and  wife,  99-134. 
Fraudulent  representations,  as  contracts,  415,  41G. 

as  estoppels,  41G. 

as  torts,  424. 
Full  age,  defined,  339. 

Furniture,  husband's  rights  in  wife's,  14,  59,  60. 
Garnishee,  husband  as  wife's,  53. 

wife  as  liusband's,  87. 

husljand  made,  by  wife,  54,  65. 
General  statutes,  defined,  12. 

whetlier  apply  to  married  women,  12,  13,  43,  50,  56, 
345,  3()9,  471,  481. 
Gift,  defined,  224 ;  between  husband  and  wife,  42,  104, 
107,  IKJ,  119,  120,  1:15,  127,  128,  129,  1G4, 178, 198,314. 

wlien  presumed  between  husband  and  v.ifo,  42,  65, 
127,  129,  132,  209. 

necessity  of  delivery,  120^  127. 


Gift— Com  inued. 

of  labor,  j^^  (35,  87,  130. 

causa  mortis,  127,  350. 

property  acquired  by,  224. 
Grant.    See  Dei:ds,  Conveyances,  etc. 

defined,  223,  224. 

property  acquired  by,  224, 
Grantor  and  grantea,  marriago  of,  44. 
Gross  sum,  dower  assigned  in,  294. 
Guarantor.    See  Surety. 
Guardian,  of  wife  cannot  release  dower,  271. 

wife  may  join  with,  of  husband,  271. 

married  ■woman  as,  487. 

of  husband  cannot  reduce  to  possession,  177. 
Habeas  corpus,  Avife's  right  to  writ  of,  48,  62. 

husband's  right  to  writ  of,  for  wife,  62. 
Harboring,  action'for,  spouse,  78. 
Head  of  family,  husband  as,  14,  60. 

wife  as,  GO,  90  ;  as  husband's  agent,  94. 
Hoir,  husband's  rights  as,  vest  wlien,  22. 

wife's  i-ights  as,  vest  when,  22,  244. 
Heir-looms,  wife's  rights  in,  186. 
Holpmoet,  Avife  as  husband's,  14,  64,  65. 
Horoditaments,  dower  in,  253. 

Hindering  creditors.     See  Fraudulent  Convp:yances. 
Home,  as  matrimonial  domicile,  29. 

husband's  riglit  to  fix,  29,  60  ;  to  change,  29. 

spouse's  equal  right  to  enter  family,  14,  59. 

wife  bound  to  care  for,  65. 

wife  as  agent  in,  94. 
Home  and  foreign  law,  effect  of,  discussed,  24-37. 
Homestead,  discussed,  320-330. 
Honor,  conjugal  duty  of,  58. 
House.    See  IIome. 
Housohold  arrangements,  husband's  control  of,  60. 

wife's  control  of,  90. 

Avife  as  general  agent  in,  94. 
Housekeeper,  Avife  as,  94. 
Husband.    See  various  titles. 

defined,  1. 

conjugal  rights  of,  14,  57-81 ;  enumerated  and  de- 
fined, 57  ;  to  love,  honor,  etc.,  58  ;  to  cohaljitation, 
59;  to  sexual  intercourse,  59;  to  fix  and  regulate 
the  family  lionie,  60  ;  to  give  tlie  family  name,  61  ; 
to  j)ersonal  custody  and  restraint  of  wife,  62 ;  to 


Husband —  Continued. 

personally  chastise  wife,  ?  03  ;  to  wife's  services, 
(ja;  to  sue  for  injuries  to  Avife,  70;  to  sue  for 
enticing  or  harboring  Avife,  77  ;  to  sue  for  crim. 
con.  with  wife,  79  ;  to  represent  Avife  as  agent,  84. 

conjugal  duties  of,  57-Sl ;  to  coliabit  AA'ith  Avife,  59,  GO  ; 
to  support  Avife,  6-1,  74,  81 ;  to  treat  AVife  kindly,  58. 

conjugal  liabilities  of,  for  Avife's  contracts,  67,  81 ; 
torts,  6G ;  crimes,  68. 

property  rights  of,  70,  135-183 ;  generally,  135-139  ; 
in  his  OAvn  property,  140 ;  in  his  Aviic's  realty, 
141-102 ;  in  his  Avife's  personalty,  1()3-1S3 ;  m 
equitable  separate  property,  212 ;  in  statutory 
separate  projjerty,  243  ;  in  community  jiroperty, 
315 ;  in  homestead,  328 ;  in  AA-ife's  trade,  469- 
478. 

suing  rights  of,  generally,  439,  449,  460-463 ;  on 
Avife's  contracts,  183  ;  torts,  76-79. 

rights  and  liabilities  of,  hoAV  far  A'ested,  22 ;  depend 
on  Avhat  law,  24-33. 

as  trustee  of  Avife,  202. 

as  agent  of  Avife,  8-1-S8. 
Husband  and  Ayifo,  relation  of,  defined,  1,  2;  discussed, 
38-134. 

unity  of,  defined,  38-39,  41,  43,  48,  304 ;  as  to  con- 
tracts, 4t)— 16  ;  torts,  47-49  ;  crimes,  47-49  ;  AA'ill  ■!, 
50,  51 ;  suits,  52-56  ;  agencA',  84-93 ;  mutual  deal- 
ings, 99-137 ;  possession.  118  a-121 ;  realty,  304- 
309 ;  personalty,  311. 

estates  of,  defined,  3  ;  entireties,  304-309  ;  joint  and 
common,  310  ;  in  personalty,  311. 

mutual  rights  and  obligations  of,  57-81. 
Identity,  of  husljand  and  Avife,  38,  82, 119. 
Immovables,  lex  si'ce  goA-erns,  27,  33. 

Aviiether  property  Is  immovable,  hoAV  determined, 
31,  33. 

marriage  contract  as  to,  27. 
Impeaclimont,  of  married  Avoman's  deed,  405. 
Implied,  promise  of  husband  to  restore  fund  to  Avife,  42. 

conti-act  betAveen  husband  and  wife  for  serAdces,  65, 
87. 

gift  from  husband  to  AAnfe,  42, 127  •  Avife  to  husband, 
42,  65,  127,  129,  132,  209. 

suretyship,  134. 
Implied  contracts  of  married  women,  discussed,  375,  381. 


INDEX.  729 

Implied  poworn  of  married  women,  in  equity,  ??  203-208. 

under  statutes,  234 ;  liberal  interpretation,  16,  134, 
231,  371, 

from  ownership,  205,  206,  234,  236,  372. 

to  contract  as  to  separate  property,  203,234,  371,  372. 

to  act  as  trader,  475. 
Impotence,  cause  of  nullitj^,  59. 

no  bar  to  do-\vcr,  249. 
Improvements,  on  wife's  property  are  Avife's,  SS,  147. 

wife's  contracts  for,  239,  372,  373,  387. 

by  one  spouse  of  other  spouse's  property,  131. 

dower  in,  295. 
In  any  mannor,  property  acquired  in,  defined,  222. 
In  law  and  in  fact,  agency,  82,  84,  89. 

fraud,  109,  113,  121. 

seisin,  155,  252. 
In  liou  of  dowor.    8ee  Jointurk,  Election. 

devise,  discussed,  274. 
In  pais,  estoppel,  defined,  413. 

lu  personam  and  in  rem,  contracts  of  married  women, 
206,  379. 

remedies  against  married  Avomen,  211,  372,  379. 
Incapacity,  of  husband  through  marriage,  43. 

of  Avi fe,  38,  331-187. 
Inchoate  dowor,  discussed,  246,  262. 
Incidental  powers.    See  Implied  Powers. 
Income,  rights  oA-er,  may  differ  from  riglits  OA^er  princi- 
pal, 205,  236,  372. 
Incorporator,  married  Avoman  as,  481. 
Incorporeal  proporty.    See  Choses  in  Action. 

seisin  in,  252. 

as  chases  in  action,  171,  173. 
Increase  of  wife's  property,  right  to,  vested,  22. 

is  sei)arate  property,  119,  209,  227  ;  though  the  result 
of  liusband's  time  and  labor,  87. 

of  equi(:al:)Ie  separate  property,  209. 

of  statutorv  separate  ]n-operty,  227. 

of  business,  87,  464,  46S,  469,  475. 

under  community  system,  314. 

as  earnings,  65. 
Indorsomont,  of  note  by  husband  as  reduction,  181. 

Aalidity  of,  by  married  Avoman,  44,  91,  181,  385. 
Industry.    See  r]ARNiNGs. 
Infancy,  etfect  of  Avife's,  generally,  339. 

effect  of  husband's,  generally,  335. 


730  INDEX. 

Infancy —  Continued. 

full  age  defined,  \  339. 

and  coverture  combining,  339. 
Infant,  custody  of,  wife,  62, 

support  of,  wife,  64. 

duty  to  support  of,  husband,  64. 

dower  of,  wife,  259  ;  release  of,  271. 

husband's  joint  deed  with  wife,  33."),  339. 

wife's  joint  deed  with  husband,  339. 

status  "of,  ^\ife,  339. 
Initiate  curtesy,  discussed,  151,  156,  158. 
Injuries.    See  Torts. 
Injunction,  by  wife  against  husband,  48. 
Insane,  wife  cannot  release  dower,  271. 

cannot  consent,  213,  339. 

wife's  riglits  when  husband  is,  90,  335  ;  as  head  of 
family,  60  ;  to  put  hu.sband  in  asylum,  90. 

guardian  of,  luisband,  cannot  reduce  to  jjossession, 
177  ;  may  join  in  deed  witli  wife,  271. 

huslnind  not  liable  for  acts  of,  wife,  66. 
Insanity  and  coverture,  elfect  of  combination,  339. 
Insolvency.    See  Bankruptcy. 

laws  as  to,  affecting  married  women,  13,  369. 

of  luisband,  wife's  claim  against  estate,  53. 
Intended  domicile,  defined,  28,  29. 
Intention,  as  to  gifts,  127. 

to  cxchido  husband's  rights,  hoAV  shoA^^l,  199,  200. 
Intercoiurse,  cDujugal  right  of,  59. 
Interests,  of  Iuisl)and  and  wife  the  same,  39,  56. 
Investment,  by  liusband  for  Avife,  42. 

by  wife  with  husband's  monej',  65. 

of  joint  funds  of  husband  and  wife,  129,  311. 

of  separate  property,  119,  209,  227. 
Issue,  birth  of,  necessary  to  curtesy,  154;  notto  dower,  249. 
Jewels,  as  ]iarai>l)ernalia,  1S6. 
Joinder  of  husband,  cannot  be  compelled,  388,  399. 

cannot  be  delegated,  399. 

in  wife's  contracts,  206,  212,  .302. 

in  wife's  torts,  66. 

in  wife's  deeds,  20.5,  212,  399.  j 

in  wife's  wills,  348.  | 

in  wife's  trade,  87,  469. 

in  wife's  estoppels,  409. 

when  husband  is  infant,  335.  ^ 

when  wife  is  infant,  339.  ^ 


INDEX.  731 

Joinder  of  wife,  cannot  be  compelled,  I  407. 
cannot  be  delegated,  400. 
in  deed  of  husband's  property,  270-271. 
Joint,  acquisition  by  husband  and  wife,  231. 
contracts  by  husband  and  wife,  382. 
deed  by  husband  and  wife,  43,  205,  271,  390  ;  binding 

on  liusband  though  void  as  to  wife,  40S. 
deed  to  husband  and  wife,  804. 
deposit  by  husband  and  Avife,  128. 
estop]jel  against  husband  and  wife,  400. 
investments  by  husband  and  wife,  129,  311. 
property  of  husband  and  wife,  302-311. 
service  against  husband  and  wife,  452. 
suits  of  husband  and  wife,  439 ;   against  husband 

and  wife,  449. 
tenancy  of  husband  and  wife,  307,  310,  313 ;  mar- 
riage of  joint  tenants,  302,  310. 
tenancy,  curtesy  in,  155,  157;  dower  in,  254;  hus- 
band may  dissever  Avife's,  in  leasehold,  145  ;  stat- 
utes as  to,  how  affect  entireties,  307. 
Jointure,  discussed,  126,  273,  274. 

Judgment,  confessed  by  husband  in  favor  of  wife,  53. 
against  married  women,  411,  457,  458 ;  as  estoppel, 

411. 
by  husband  on  wife's  chose  in  action  as  reduction, 
180. 
Jure  uxoris,  liusband's  suit,  76,  77. 

husband's  estate,  146-150. 
Jurisdiction.    See  Equity,  etc. 

Jus  disponendi,  as  an  incident  of  ownership,  205,  206,  236, 
372. 
distingv^ished  from^^^s  ienendi,  236.  372, 
Keeping  house,  position  of  wife  when,  94. 
Labor.    8ee  Eaenings. 

uifts  between  liusband  and  wife  of,  65,  87,  130. 
Laches,  as  to  claim  of  dower,  277. 

as  limitations,  277,  339,  365. 
Lands.    See  Realty. 

Lapsed  legacy,  to  wife,  husband's  rights  in,  225. 
Larceny,  between  husband  and  wife,  14,  47,  48. 
Law.    See  In  Law  and  in  Fact. 
common,  6. 
civil,  7. 
etjuity,  8. 
statutes,  9, 


732  INDEX, 

Law —  Continued. 

of  husband  and  Avife,  defined,  H  1-5  ;   sources  of, 
6-10;  interpretation  of,  11-18. 

international,  24-37. 

home  and  foreign,  24-37. 

past  and  present,  19-23. 

lex  domicilii,  30, 31 ;  rei  sitte,  33 ;  loci  actus,  34;  fori,  35, 
Lease,   bv  married  woman,  void  at  ooninion  law,  147, 
387  ;  when  valid,  234,  239,  372  ;  is  a  "  disposition" 
of  property,  233. 

to  married  woman,  is  a  purchase  Ijv  her,  387  ;  prop- 
erty acquired  by  "  grant,"  224. 

bv  hnsliand  of  wife's  property,  145. 
Leasehold  estates,  husband's  rights  in  wife's,  145, 

entireties  in,  303. 
Legacy,  husband's  right  in  wife's,  174  ;  lapsed,  225. 

proi><rty  acquired  by,  225, 

is  a  cli'isr  in  action,  169. 
Legitimate  childron,  result  from  marriage,  1, 

legislature  may,  23. 

are  so  by  law  of  doinicile,  30. 
Letters.    See  Administration,  Powers, 
Liberal,  interpretation  of  statutes,  12,  16, 
Lien,  of  vendor  as  against  dower,  259. 

of  vendor  not  forfeited  by  acceptance  of  married 
woman's  note,  385. 
Life  estates,  husband's  rights  in  wife's,  144. 

curtesy  in,  155. 

dower  in,  254. 
Limitations,  plea  of,  by  married  women,  456 ;   against 
married  women,  445  ;  between  husband  and  wife, 
55  a;  after  husband's  death,  147, 

in  favor  of  husband  and  wife,  66,  67,  339,  365,  456, 

as  to  curtesy,  159, 

as  to  dower,  277, 

how  wife's  act  affects  running  of,  91,  368,  381. 

debt  barred  by,  as  consideration,  105. 
Liquor  seller,  liability  of,  under  civil  damage  acts,  80. 
Local  law,  discussed,  24-37. 

all  statutes  presumed,  12,  18,  275,  308,  321. 
Lock  up,  husband's  right  to,  wife,  48,  62. 
Love,  marriage  right  to,  58, 

as  a  consideration,  105, 
Lunacy.    See  Insane, 
Maintenance,  suits  for,  74. 


I^'^DEx.  7.^ 

Majority.    See  Infant. 

Management,  by  married  women  of  separate  property, 
y/',,  i;o3,  233. 
bv  hu.sband  of  wife's  i>roperty,  87,  119 ;  suits,  66,  67, 

'91,  4(i0. 
of  married  women's  suits,  460,  461. 
of  household,  60,  94. 
Manor,  dower  in  a,  253. 
Mansion  house,  dower  hi,  291. 

Manslaughter,  wife's  death  from  husband's  neglect  as, 
64  ;  boating,  63. 
killing  by  husband  of  wife's  paramour,  59. 
Marital  rights.    See  Conjugal  Rights. 
Market,  dower  in,  253. 
Marriage,  defined,  1. 

essential  to  suit  for  crim.  con.,  79;   curtesy,  253; 

dower,  250. 
effect  of,  of  contracting  parties,  44. 
effect  of,  on  wills,  352. 
unity  growing  out  of,  38,  39. 
rights  and  obligations  growing  out  of,  57-81. 
agency  growing  out  of,  82-98. 
estates  growing  out  of,  135-330. 
incai)aci;y  of  husband  g.*owing  out  of,  43. 
incapacity  of  wife  growing  out  of,  331-487. 
Marriage  sottloments,  discussed,  99-134. 
as  creating  separate  property,  198. 
eflbct  of,  on  contlict  of  laws,  27,  28,  33. 
Married  woman.    See  Femjik  Covert,  Wife. 
Married  women's  separate  property  acts,  described,  218. 
construction  of,  generally,  12,  15,  370-372. 
effect  of,  on  personal  status,  12,  15,  48  ;  contracts 
between   husband  and  wife,   43 ;   torts  between 
husband  and  wife,  48,  49;  suits  between  husband 
and  wife,  54  ;  wife's  right  to  supjiort,  64  ;  earnings, 
65 ;    husband's  liability  for  Avife's  contracts,  67 ; 
torts,  66  ;  crimes,  G8  ;  on  equitable  separate  prop- 
erty, 197,  216 ;  on  equity  of  settlement,  190 ;   on 
entireties,  306,  308 ;   curtesj^  161 ;    wife's  surety- 
ship, 134,  391 ;  wife's  personal  contracts,  370-373, 
470 ;  wife's  capacity  to  trade,  470. 
estate  created  by,  discussed,  217-243. 
Matrimonial,  domicile  defined,  29. 
suits  defined,  48,  52. 
rights  and  obligations,  57-81. 
II.  &  w.  — 62. 


734  IXDEX. 

Mechanic's  lien,  wife's  lands,  when  liable,  ?  242. 

placed  by  husband  on  wife's  lands,  85,  131,  306. 
Merchandise,  wife's  rights  over,  233,  236,  372,  475. 
Merger,  of  wife  in  husband  by  marriage,  38. 

of  curtesy  initiate,  158. 
Mesne  profits,  dower  in,  297. 
Metes  and  bounds,  dower  assigned  by,  292. 
Mill,  dower  in,  253. 

wife  running  a,  465. 
Mines,  dower  in,  253,  292. 
Mingling,  of  jsroperty  of  husband  and  wife,  65, 118  a-121, 

129,  310,  311. 
Mining  interest,  is  "  propertj^"  219. 
Minor.    See  Infant. 
Misappropriation,  of  money  by  married  women,  66,  381, 

4s3. 
Mistake,  power  of  legislature  to  correct,  23. 

reforming,  etc.,  married  woman's,  in  equity,  123, 
205,  236,  270,  272,  359,  368,  376,  404. 
Money,  rights  of  husband  and  wife  in  wife's,  106,  167, 
169,  170,  172,  219. 

is  "  ijrojjerty,"  219;  whether  note  is  conti'act  as  to 
property',  373. 
Mortgage,  jjower  to,  included  in  jjower  to  convey,  1154, 
372. 

restraint  on  power  to,  204. 

to  secure  invalid  debt,  368. 

for  husband's  debt,  134. 

foreclosure  of  married  woman's,  mider  general  law, 
13. 

marriage  of  parties  to  a,  44. 

priorities  as  l>etween,  and  dower,  260. 

of  married  woman,  generally,  134,  223,  230. 
Movables,  rights  in,  depend  on  lex  domicilii,  27,  31. 

whether  projierty  is,  31,  33. 

effect  of  marriage  contract  on,  27. 
Mutual  wills,  between  liusband  and  wife,  349. 
"My  wife,"  in  case  of  several  wives,  51. 
Name,  family,  right  of  wife  to,  01. 

woman  bearing  man's,  not  necessarily  his  agent, 
97. 
Naming,  of  certain  powers  a  denial  of  others,  12,  16,  43, 

20-t,  220,  374. 
Necessaries,  suit  for,  81. 

agency  of  wife  for,  90,  94,  95. 


INDKX.  735 

Next  friend,  suit  by  wife  through,  H  53,  192,  440,  4(51 

suit  tigaiust  wife  tlirougli,  450. 

liable  for  costs,  437,  4(j3, 
Next  of  kin,  rights  of  liusband  and  wife  as,  22. 
Nominal,  consideration,  lOo. 

party,  liusband,  wlien  a,  429,  439,  449. 
Notes,   of  married  women,   validity  of,   223,  375,   335; 
husband's  rights  in,  173 ;    contirmed  after  dis- 
covoi'ture,  3G(J ;  discussed,  385. 

to  husband,  41,  42. 

of  husband  to  wife,  41,  42;  antenuptial,  44,  55. 

to  liusband  and  wife,  132,  13(i,  311. 

hy  liusband  as  agent  for  wife,  85. 

by  wife  as  agent  for  husband,  89  ;  accommodation, 
92 ;  in  business,  93  ;  how  made,  93. 

invalid,  secured  by  mortgage,  3^8. 
Notice,  to  liusband  when,  to  wife,  85. 

invalid  deed  no,  368. 
Nuisance,  liability  for,  on  married  woman's  proTiertv, 

243. 
Obedience,  conjugal  duty  of,  58,  60,  62. 
Obligation  of  contracts,  acts  imj)airing,  21. 
Obligor  and  obligee.    See  Bond,  Covenant,  etc. 

marriage  of,  44. 
One  person,  husband  and  wife  as,  38,  39,  303. 
Oral  settlement,  discussed,  199,  224. 
Ornaments,  ownership  of  wives',  120,  127,  18(3. 
Ownership,  presumed  from  possession,  86,  88,  118  a,  119. 

ineidcMits  of,  203,  205,  234,  272. 
Paraphernal  proporty,  under  civil  law,  186. 
Paraphernalia,  wife's,  discussed,  186,  187. 
Parent  and  child,  relation  of,  detined,  5.  v 

law  of  domicile  as  to,  30. 

right  of  parent  to  harbor  child,  78 ;  to  control,  60 ; 
to  chastise,  30. 

obligation  of  parent  to  child,  05,  71. 
Parol  gifts,  between  husband  and  wife,  120,  121,  127. 
Participation  of  husband.    See  Joinder. 
Parties.    8ee  Suits. 

two,  ne(;essary  to  every  contract,  40. 
Partition,  wife's  suit  against  husband  for,  53. 

wife's  interest  in  case  of,  of   husband's  propertv, 
13a,  172. 
Partnor,  married  woman's  capacity  to  be,  480. 

wife  as,  of  husband,  87,  480;  community,  320. 


736  INDEX. 

Partner — Continued. 

husband  cannot  make  wife,  §  85. 
lands  of,  are  personalty,  136. 
dower  in  lands  of,  254,  257. 
Past  law.    See  IIetrospective  Laws. 

ettbet  of,  discussed,  19-23. 
Payment,  receipt  of,  as  reduction  to  possession,  179. 
Pending  sots,  etfect  of  marriage  en,  430. 

etteot  of  dissolution  of  marriage  in,  434. 
Perpetuities,  rule  against,  204. 
Person,  liusband  and  wife  as  one,  38,  39,  303. 
Personal,  and  property  marriage  rights  distinguished, 
22,  27,  28,  29. 
rights  are  "property,"  219;  when  vested,  22. 
rights  growing  out  of  marriage,  57-81. 
and  property  obligations  of  married  women  distin- 
guished, 42,  211,  372,  379. 
contracts  of  married  women,  237,  239,  379. 
injuries  to  wife,  right  of  action  for,  75-79,  219,  222, 

230. 
property  of    husband,   his    rights   in,   140 ;    wife's 

rights"  in,  301. 
property  of  wife,  husband's  rights  in,  163-183 ;  her 

rights  in,  b]2,  184-243. 
property  of  both  husband  and  wife,  311. 
property,  "estate  "  in,  135  ;  conversion  from  realty, 

136. 
services  of  wife,  65. 
custody  and  restraint  of  wife,  62. 
chastisement  of  wife,  63. 
Piano,  purcliase  of,  by  married  woman,  223. 

is  "household  furniture,"  219. 
Pin-money,  discussed,  188,  189. 
Piscary,  dower  in.  253. 

Possession,  as  evidence  of  title,  86,  119  ;  follows  title,  88, 
119. 
efiect  of  joint,  of  husband  and  wife,  118  rt-121 ; 
presumption  of  ownership,  119,  127;  change 
of,  as  delivery,  120 ;  retention  of,  as  fraud, 
121. 
wife's  personalty  in,   discussed,   166-170;  of  wife, 

li)7  ;  of  liusband,  168  ;  of  third  pariy,  169. 
reduction  to,  discussed,  177-183. 
as  seisin,  155,  247. 
Possibilities,  husband's  rights  in  wife's,  175. 


IXDEX,  737 

Postnuptial,  dealings  between  husband  and  wife,  gen- 
erally, ^^99-134;  contracts,  40-40;  torts,  47,  48; 
crimes,  47,  49  ;  wills,  50,  51,  349  ;  suits,  52-56. 

contract  as  to  dower,  26(3,  267. 
Power,  private  and  statutory  distinguislied,  205,206,  376. 

of  wife  over  ecxuitable  separate  estate,  1203  ;  statutory, 
233,  372. 

wife's  execution  of,  203,  205 ;  in  favor  of  liusband, 

203. 

wife's  deed  as  an  execution  of  a,  23,  3/2,  376,  404, 
407. 

deedo  under,  205,  376,  407. 

wills  under,  50,  342. 
Power  of  attorney,  of  married  women  discussed,  403  ;  as 
to  dower,  271. 

of  liusband  to  wife,'89. 
Practice.    .See  .Suits. 
Preference,  by  husband  of  wife,  45. 
Premiums.    ,^ee  I>-.suea>'ce. 

Presence  of  hu.sband,  coercion  iDresumed  from,  GCy,  68,  121, 
417,  410. 

torts  by  married  women  in,  66. 

crimes  by  married  women  in,  68. 

wife's  silence  in,  as  an  estoppel,  121,  213,  417,  419. 
Presumptions,  of  gift  between  husband  and  wife,  42.  65. 
127,  199. 

of  agency  of  wife,  93. 

of  title  from  possession,  86,  88,  118  a,  119. 

of  married  woman's  incapacity,  357. 

of  fraud  in  law,  107. 

of  intent  to  charge  separate  pi'operty,  200,  235,  238, 
373. 
Pretended  agency,  of  husband  for  wife  as  fraud,  87. 
Prima  facie,  disability  of  married  women,  357. 

evidence  of  ccrtiticate  to  deed,  -]()1. 
Priorities,  as  between  dower  and  other  encumbrances, 

258. 
Private  instructions,  to  agent  are  of  no  effect,  84,  90,  94, 

98. 
Private  powers,  distinguished  from  statutory,  205,  206, 

376. 
Privy  examination,  of  married  women,  205,  399,  400. 
Procedure.    See  .Suits. 

riglitsand  remedies,  429  ;  tort  Ijotween  husband  and 
wife  not  a  question  of,  48. 


738  INDKX. 

Procedure —  Coniinued. 

statutet^  relating  to,  g^  20,  43G. 

rights  of,  not  vested,  22. 

depend  on  tlie  law  of  the  forum,  35,  37,  435  ;  enforc- 
ing of  contracts,  144. 

after  dcatli  of  husband  or  wife,  44. 
Proceeding  in  rom,  discussed,  211,  372,  379. 
Proceeds  of  married  women's  suits,  ownership  of,  447. 
Process,  against  married  women,  211,  452. 
Product.    Wee  Earnings,  Increase. 
Profits,  of  equitable  sepai-ate  property,  209. 

of  statutory  separate  propertv,  227. 

of  business,  87,  465,  4()8,  470,  475. 
Prohibition,  by  husband  to  wife  against  acting  as  his 

agent,  89,  90,  94,  98. 
Promises.     See  Contracts. 
Promissory  notes.    8ee  Notes. 
Proof.     8ee  Evidence,  Presumption,  Witness. 

of  foreign  law,  25. 

of  agency,  8(5,  97. 

of  consideration,  108. 

of  title  to  separate  property,  119,  232. 

burden  of,  on  wife  to  show  ownersliip,  119,  132,  232  ; 
on  i>arty  setting  vl\)  cajjacity  of  married  woman, 
237,  357. 
Property.    .See  Estates,  etc. 

deliued,  44, 65,  87,  219,  222,  229,230;  chose  in  action, 
44  ;  aliility  to  earn,  65  ;  talents,  87. 

what,  liable  in  execution,  66,  67,  458. 

rights  and  jjersonal  rights  distinguished,  27,  28,  42, 
211,379. 
Property  acts.    See  Married  Women's  Property. 
Prospective,  statutes  presumed,  17,  20,  65,  67,  268.308,  378. 
Public  policy,  as  to  contract  between  husband  and  wife, 
40. 

as  to  testimony  between  husband  and  wife,  36. 

as  to  unity  of  husband  and  wife,  12,  14,  43. 

as  to  mutual  confidence  between  husband  and  Avife, 
119. 
Public  use,  dedication  to,  as  bar  to  dower,  278. 
Purchase,  married  women's  capacity  to,  223,  373,  383. 

)>roporty  acquired  by,  223. 

joint,  of  liusband  and  wife,  132. 
Purchase  money,  lien  for,  prior  to  dower,  259. 

wife's  liability  for,  223,  383.  N^ 


INDEX.  739 

Purchase  money  —  Continued. 

wife's  estoppel  by  receipt  of,  J?  405,  410,  412,  415. 

whetlier  wife  inuwt  restore,  3(38,  3S3. 
Pure  torts,  wife's  liability  for  her,  6(3,  423,  424;    hus- 
band's, 66. 

wife  estopped  by  hex-,  418. 
Quarantine,  widow's,  290. 
Quit-claim  daod,  presumed  without  consideration,  108. 

wife's  deed  as  a,  384,  412. 
Sape,  testimony  of  wife  in  action  for,  5(5. 
Ratification,  of 'wife's  agency  by  husband,  84. 

of  husband's  agency  by  wife,  8i),  <j;3,  94. 
-  of  contracts  by  married  women,  3(36,  368. 

of  deeds  by  married  women,  23,  270-272,  339,  402-404. 

of  deed  by  infant,  339. 
Eealty,  estates  in,  135,  136. 

converted  into  personalty,  136. 

improveinents  on,  131. 

lex  rei  sitte  applies  to,  33. 

husband's  estates  in  wife's,  141-162. 

wife's  estates  in  husband's,  244-300. 

estates  of  husband  and  wife  in,  302-310. 
Reasonabla  provicion,  by  husband  for  wife  in  settlement 
valid  against  creditors,  116. 

hj  equity  out  of  wife's  choses  in  action,  190-196. 
Receipt,  of  husband  for  wife,  82,84, 85, 179,  212  ;  validity 
of.  depends  on  what  law,  33. 

of  wife  for  husband,  89,  91. 

of  married  woman,  179,  386. 

by  husband  as  reduction,  179. 
Recori,  estoppel  by,  411,  457. 
Recording,  of  gift,  120,  121. 

of  marriage  settlement,  102  ;  transfer  between  hus- 
band and  wife,  120,  121. 

schedule  of  separate  property,  121,  232. 

of  declaration  of  intent  to  trade,  472. 

of  homestead  claim,  325. 
Rectifying,  deed  of  married  woman  in  equitv,  123,  205, 
23(),  270,  272,  376,  404. 

by  statute,  23,  403. 
Redemption,  of  mortgage,  effect  of,  on  do%ver,  261. 
Reduction  to  possession,  by  husband  of  wife's  choftes  in 
aclini),  177-183;  a  personal  right,  177;  the  intent 
and  the  act,  178  ;  payment,  etc.,  179  ;  substitution, 
180;  assignment,  181;  release,  179;  suit,  180. 


740 


I 


Keforming.    See  Bectifying. 

Relation.      See    Husband    and    Wife,    Parent    and 

Child. 
"Relating  to,"  contracts,  property,  Avhat  are,  ??  239,  373. 
Release,  f)f  dov.er,  271-273  ;  as  a  consideration,  105. 

of  mortgage  by  marriage,  44. 

of  mortgage,  efT?ct  on  dower,  2(11. 

of  an<^ennptial  debts  by  marriage,  44  ;  torts,  48. 

bv  linsband  as  a  reduction,  179. 

liusband's,  for  wife,  82,  182,  212. 

of  married  Avoman,  38G. 
Remainders,  luisband's  rights  in  -wife's,  17.^. 

curtesy  in,  157. 

dower  in,  254. 
Remedies.    8ee  Suits. 

statute  giving  new,  does  not  destroy  old,  12,  54. 

and  rights  distinguished,  237,  429. 

right  to,  not  vested,  20,  22,  4.3(J. 

depend  on  law  of  forum,  .31,  35,  435. 

in  pcrsonain  and  in  rem,  211,  372,  379. 

as  to  equitable  separate  property,  210,  211. 

as  to  statutory  separate  property,  241,  242. 

as  to  fraudulent  conveyances,  122-124. 

after  discoverture,  .55,  3i)(). 
Renouncing  will.    See  EiiEcrioN. 
Rent.     See  Lease. 

husliand  collecting  wife's,  84,  410. 

wife  collecting  liusband's,  89. 

ownership  of,  of  wife's  property  at  common  law, 
1 W  ;  equitable  separate,  209 ;  statutory  separate, 
227. 

wife's  liability  for,  .387;  implied,  381,  387. 

assignment  of  dower  in,  293. 
Requisites,  of  dower,  249. 

of  curtesy,  1,52. 
Repairs,  bv  liusband  of  wife's  property,  85. 

wife's'contracts  for,  234,  371,  372. 

wif(^"s  liability  for,  387. 
Replevin,  by  wife  against  husband,  54. 

estop])ing  mnn-ied  women,  41(3. 
Representative  capacity,  married  women  in,  482-487; 
f|uestions  involved,  4S2 ;  general  rules,  483;  as 
agent,  84,  303,  4(i9,  479,  484  ;  as  trustee,  132,  485  ;  as 
executrix  or  administratrix,  486 ;  as  guardian, 
487.  1 


INDKX.  741 

Republication,  of  married  women's  wills,  ?  353. 
Bes  adjudicata,  suit  in  wife's  riglit  iis,  in  suit  on  hus- 
band's   right,    77 ;    judgment   against    married 
women  as.  411,  457. 
Residence.    See  Home. 

not  necessary  for  dower,  249. 
Eestitution,  of  cohjugal  rights,  72. 
Restraint,  on  alienation  discussed,  204. 

of  wife  l^y  liusband,  62. 
Resulting    trusts,    between    husband    and    Avife,    129, 

132. 
Retention  of  possession,  by  husband  as  fraud,  121. 
Retroactive  laws,  dotined,  19. 
Retrospective  laws,  discussed,  19-23. 

defined,  19. 

as  to  curtesy,  22,  162. 

as  to  contracts,  22,  378. 

curative  acts,  23,  376,  40.3. 
Reversions,  dower  in,  254. 

married  women's  power  over,  205,  206,  236,  372. 
Revocation,  of  deed  by  married  woman,  270. 

of  gift  from  husband  to  wife,  123,  127,  469. 

of  will  bj^  marriage,  51,  351. 

of  husband's  agency  by  wife,  84. 

of  wife's  agency  by  husband,  94,  98, 

of  agency  by  d'ea'.h,  84,  98,  127. 
Rights.    See  Personal,  Property,  Estates,  etc. 

and  remedies  distinguished,  237,  429. 

valuable  and  vested,  20,  22. 

personal  and  property,  22,  27,  28,  29. 

governed  by  Avhat  law,  24-37. 

conjugal,  57-81. 

in  action,  171, 

suits  in  diftorent,  77. 

general  effect  of  marriage  on  personal,  38,  39,  331 ; 
property,  137, 
RtJos,  for  the  construction  of  statutes,  11-lS. 

no  general  statute  alTects  law  of  husband  and  wife, 
12,  13,  50,  56,  345,  369,  481, 

married  women  acts  do  not  affect  relation  of  hvis- 
band  and  wife,  12,  14,  43,  48,  54,  367,  375. 

propertv  acts  do  not  aflect  personal  status,  12,  15, 
48,  233,  237,  308,  370,  372,  470. 

statute  denying  certain  i)Owers  mav  impllcdlv  give 
all  Others,  43,  56,  374, 


742  INDEX. 

Sules — Continued. 

statute  enumerating  certain  powers  may  impliedly 
deny  ail  others,  gg  12,  IG,  43,  204,  220,  i:36,  345,  371, 
373,  374. 
some  statutes  must  be  stric'.ly  construed,  12,  16,  43, 

345,  374,  37G. 
some  statutes  must  bo  liberally  construed,  12,  16. 
statutes  must  be  construed  prospectively,  12,  17,  20, 

162,  165,  268,  308,  321,  339. 
statutes  must  be  construed  locally,  12,.  18,  275,  308, 

321. 
as  to  contracts  of  married  women,  369-378. 
as  to  contracts  charging  equitable  separate  estate, 

206. 
as  to  estoppels  against  married  women,  410. 
as  to  conllict  of  laws,  27. 
Sales,  of  married  women,  233,  3S3. 
by  husband  trustee  to  wife,  37. 
by  wife  executrix  to  Jiusband,  486. 
Savings.    See  Earnings. 

of  married  women,  65,  87,  209,  227, 
Scire  facias,  writ  of,  by  wife  against  husband,  53. 
Scope  of  authority,  of  agency  of  husband,  85. 

of  agency  of  wife,  92,  94. 
Seal,  etiect  of  married  woman's,  384,  386,  408,  412. 
Secret  instructions,  to  agent,  84,  90,  94. 
Security,  wife  coutrac'ang  as,  134,  391. 
Seduction.    See  Entickment,  Crim.  Con.  ! 

Seisin,  in  law  and  in  fact,  155,  252. 
for  dower,  252. 
for  curtesy,  147. 

for  husband's  estate  ./wre  uxoris,  147. 
Sell,  married  women's  agreement  to,  372,  373,  3S3. 

married  woman's  power  to,  205,  236,  376,  397,  .398. 
"Separate,"  defnied,  65,  4(i5,  480. 

Separate  acknowledgment,  of  married  women,  400,  401. 
Separate  property   of  married  women,   is  of  two  kinds, 
whicli  may  exist  side  by  side,  216,  217 ;  which  is 
created,  depends  on  wording  of  deed,  199,  224  ;  or 
on  mode  of  acquisition,  199,  220-231 ;  or  wife  may 
elect,  216. 
equitable,  discussed,  197-217. 
statutory,  discussed,  217-243. 
dower  is  not,  26(i,  267,  270,  396. 
under  community  system,  314.  .i 


IXDKX,  743 

Separation,  deeds  of,  ?  40. 

a  breach  of  marriage  right,  59. 
Services.    See  Earnings. 

husband's  right  to  wife's,  65,  78. 

husband's,  given  to  wife,  87. 
Set-off,  in  suits  by  liusband  and  wife,  65,  443,  454. 
Sottleinonts,  marriage,  discussed,  40,  99-134. 
Sexual  iatorcourse,  conjugal  right  to,  59. 
Sewing  machine,  purchase  of,  by  married  woman,  219, 

Shares.    See  Stock. 

Sickness  of  husband,  wife's  agency  during,  90,  3.35. 
Sijnaturo,  wife  bound  by  her,  405. 

Siionce,  of  married  wonian  as  an  estoppel,  120,  121,  213, 
410,  417;  creates  husband  agent,  when,  84,  121, 
213,  410. 
Skill.    See  Eaknings. 
Slander,  between  husband  and  wife,  48. 

b}''  hu.sband  and  wife,  GO. 

against  wife,  77. 
Sleeping  together,  conjugal  duty  of,  59. 
Society,  conjugal  right  to  spouse's,  59,  78,  79. 
Sole  and  separate  property.    See  Equitable  Separate 
Pkoperty. 

defined,  197. 
Sources,  of  law  of  husband  and  wife,  6-10. 

of  equitable  separate  property,  19S. 

of  statutory  separate  property,  220-231. 
Special  occupant,  liusband  as,  144. 
Special  proceedings,  by  married  women,  440. 

against  married  women,  211,  459. 
Specific  performance,  for  Avifo  of  agreement  for  settle- 
ment, 123. 

against  Avife  of  agreement  to  deed,  407. 
Station  in  life,  scope  of  wife's  autliox'ity  depends  on, 

94. 
Status,  tlie  marriage,  defined,  1. 

of  married  women,  defined,  4 ;   discussed,  3S,  39, 
331-482. 

of  liusband  and  wife,  38-134. 

depends  on  law  of  domicile,  30. 

not  a  vested  right,  22. 

not  controllable  bv  contract,  28,  67,  382. 

not  affected  by  property  acts,  12,  15,  48,  233,  237,  308, 
370-372. 


744  INDEX. 

statutes.    See  Rulks. 

as  basis  of  law  of  husband  and  wife,  §  9. 

interpretation  of,  11-18. 

l^ast  and  present,  19-23. 

home  and  foreign,  24-37. 

of  fraud,  114. 

creating  separate  property,  217-243. 
Statutory  separate  property  of  married  women,  defined, 
217  ;  may  exist  side  by  side  with  equitable,  21(j, 
217  ;  dower  is  not,  267,  270. 

the  statutes  described,  218. 

'•  property  "  defined,  219. 

"separate"  defined.  Go,  129,  46a 

sources  of,  220-231  ;  owned  at  time  of  marriage,  22T 
acquired  "in  any  manner,"  222;  by  purchase. 
223 ;  by  gift  or  grant,  224 ;  by  devise,  descent, 
etc.,  225  ;  by  exchange,  226  ;  by  increase,  227  ;  b>- 
.services  or  trade,  65,  228,  470,  475;  by  contract, 
229  ;  by  tort,  230  ;  jointly  with  husband,  231. 

incidents  of,  232-243  ;  necessity  of  inventory,  etc., 
232  ;  wife's  power  and  control  over,  233  ;  powers 
incidental  to  ownership,  234,  2.39,  372;  jurisdic- 
tion of  equity  over,  235 ;  trustee  of,  235 ;  wife's 
deed,  etc.,  of,  236,  398;  wife's  wills  of,  240,  346; 
Avife's  contracts  concerning,  237,  370 ;  in  equity, 
238,  371 ;  at  law,  239,  372 ;  remedies  respecting, 
241 ;  liabilities  of,  242  ;  rights  of  husband  in,  243  ; 
rights  of  husband's  creditors  against,  243. 
Statutory  powers,  discussed,  405,  406,407. 
Stealing,  from  wife  is  from  husband,  167. 

Jjetween  husband  and  wife,  47,  49. 
Steward,  wife  as  husband's,  94. 
Stock,  is  a  chose  in  action,  171. 

is  immovable  property,  33. 

whether  is  realty,  253. 

husband's  rights  in  wife's,  173. 

husband's  liabilities  on  wife's,  176. 

husband's  transfer  of  vrifc's,  130. 

wife  as  holder  of,  390,  481. 

dower  in,  253. 
Stockholder,  married  woman  as,  390,  481. 
Stolen  goods,  husband's  liability  for  wife's  receipt  of, 

Sub  potestate  viri,  wife  is,  60. 
Subpoena.    See  Pkockss. 


INDEX.  745 

Subsequent  acquisitions,  effect  of  settlement  on,  §g  27, 28, 31. 

law  of  domicile  as  to,  27,  28,  31. 
Subsequent  creditors,  rights  of,  117. 
Suits,  matrimonial,  48^ 

of  divort-e,  73. 

for  restitution  of  conjugal  rights,  72. 

for  maintenance,  74. 

of  supplicant,  75. 

for  dower,  28(3-288. 

of  husband  in  which  wife  is  joined,  70. 

of  wife  in  which  husband  is  joined,  7(3,  439,  449. 

reduction  to  possession  by,  183. 

of  foreclosure  barring  dower,  261. 

affecting  dower,  2(31,  280. 

between  husband  and  wife,  52-56, 433  ;  generally,  52, 
433;  under  unwritten  law,  53  ;  under  statutes,  54  ; 
after  dissolution  of  marriage,  55 ;  defenses,  55  a. 

of  married  women,  generally,  428-437;  rights  and 
I'emedios,  429 ;  effect  of  marriage  on  pending, 
430  ;  at  common  law,  431  ;  in  equity  and  by  stat- 
ute, 432 ;  effect  of  dissolution  of  marriage  on 
pending,  434;  law  of  forum  governs  remedies, 
34,  35,  435 ;  law  of  time  of  suit  brought  governs 
remedies,  20,  430 ;  costs,  437. 

by  married  women,  generally,  438-447;  modes  in 
Avhich  married  women  may  sue,  438  ;  jointly  witli 
husband,  439 ;  by  next  friend  or  trustee,  440 ; 
alone,  441 ;  the  causes  of  action,  442 ;  the  defenses, 
443;  plea  of  coverture,  444;  plea  of  limitations, 
445 ;  special  proceedings,  446 ;  ownershiij  of  pro- 
ceeds, 447 

against  married  women,  generally,  448-459  ;  modes 
in  which  married  women  may  be  sued,  448  ; 
jointly  with  husband,  449;  with  trustee  or  next 
friend,  450  ;  alone,  457  ;  the  service  of  process, 
452  ;  the  cause  of  action,  453 ;  the  defenses,  454  ; 
plea  of  coverture,  455;  jjlca  of  limitations,  456; 
effect  of  judgment,  411,  457;  tlie  execution  of 
judgment,  458;  special  proceedings,  211,  459. 

management  of  married  women's,  bv  husband,  66, 
360;  by  wife,  4(31. 

attorney  in    married  women's  emi:)loyment,   462; 
compensat'on,  463. 
Bummons.    See  Process. 
Supplicant,  suit  of,  75. 

H.  &  W.-63. 


746  INDEX. 

Support,  wife's  right  of,  g  64. 

of  family,  64,  381,  387. 
Suretyship,  of  wife  for  husband,  134. 

of  married  women  generally,  J  34,  373,  375,  391. 
for  wife,  bound  though  wife  is  not,  308,  486. 
Survivorship,  of  liusband  and  wife,  as  to  personalty,  311 ; 
as  to  chases  in  action,  77,  176,  311 ;  as  to  realty,  306. 
rights  of,  depends  on  law  at  time  of  death,  20,  31. 
Talents.    See  Earnings. 
not  property,  87. 
husband  may  give  wife  his,  87. 
result  of  Vt'ife  as  earnings,  465. 
Technical  words,  not  necessary  to  create  separate  estate, 

199j  200. 
Tenancy,  joint  and  common  of  husband  and  wife,  302-311. 
Term  of  yoars.    8ee  Chattels  Real,  Leaseholds. 
Testamentary  law.    See  Wills. 
Testify.    See  Evidence. 

lausband  and  wife's  capacity  to,  56. 
Thirds,  Avidows',  discussed,  140,  266,  351. 
Title,  follows  possession,  118  a,  119. 

proof  of  wife's,  119,  132,  232. 
Torts,  between  husband  and  wife,  47-49. 
liability  of  husband  for  wife,  14,  66. 
right  of  husband  for,  to  wife,  77. 
of  married  Avomen,  (i(i,  421-425  ;  general  considera- 
tion, 421;    antenuptial,   66,  422;  postnuptial,    &), 
423;    connected  with   contract,   {>{),   91,  416,   424; 
liability  for,  how  enforced,  dii,  425. 
married  women  estopped  by,  when,  416,  418,  424. 
property  acquired  by,  230. 
Trade,  of  married  women,  464-481  ;  sources  of  capacity, 
464,  465  ;  earnings,  65,  87,  228,  464,  465  ;  capacity 
at  common  law,  466  ;  by  custom,  467;  in  equity, 
468;   with  husband's  consent,  469;  under  mar- 
ried women's    property   acts,    470 ;   under  other 
statutes,  471 ;  filing  declaration,  etc.,  472. 
incidents  of  married  Avomen's  capacit,y  to,  473-481 ; 
how  far  dependent  on  sources  of  capacity,  473; 
express  powers,  474 ;   implied  powers,   10,  475 ; 
contracts  in,  392,  475  ;  purchase  in,  223, 475  ;  rights 
of    wife's    creditors,   476 ;    riglits    of    husband's 
creditors,  477  ;  rights  and  liabilities  of  husband, 
478  ;  as  agent,  479  ;  as  incorporator,  etc.,  481 ;  a^ 
partner,  475,  480. 


Trade —  Continued. 

ownership  of  property  acquired  in,  ??  05,  87,  209, 
2-2S,  405,  4()S— 170,  475,  478. 
Transfer.    See  Dkaling,  Deed,  Disposition,  etc. 
Trespass.    See  Torts. 

husband  against  wife,  14. 

^vife  against  husband,  48. 

for  crim.  con.  79. 
Trovor,  husband  against  wife,  14,  54. 

Avife  against  husband,  4S. 

against  liusband  and  wife,  66. 
Trusts.    See  Equitable. 

resuUing,  132. 

dower  in,  252,  254,  256. 
Trustee,   of  equitable  se^jarate  property,  125,  202,  205, 
212. 

of  statutory  separate  property,  235. 

transfer  between  husband  and  wife  through,  41,  42, 
125. 

suits  of  married  women  through,  53,  440 ;  against, 
450. 

wife  may  have  husband  removed,  53. 

property  held  by  husband  as,  not  restored,  168. 

married  wcnnen  acting  as,  132,  485. 

ceshii  que  irii-^t,  husband  and  wife  as,  110,  405. 
Undue  influence.    See  Coercion,  Fraud. 
User,  by  luisband  of  wife's  property,  42,  118-121,  127. 
United  States,  no  jurisdiction  over  marriage  relation,  9. 

retrospective  statutes  under,  constitution,  21. 

citizenship  conferred  on  wife  by  marriage,  39. 
Unity  of  liusband  and  wife,  defined,  2,  38,  39,  40,  56. 

a  fiction  of  the  common  law,  6,  38,  39. 

not  destroyed  by  married   women's  acts,  12,   14, 
43. 

effect  of,  on  possession,  118  a,  119. 

etfect  of,  on  joint  lioldings,  303. 
Valid,  void,  and  voidable,  settlements  distinguished,  100. 

contract  of  married  women,  308. 
Validity.    See  Contracts,  Deeds,  etc. 
Valuable  consideration,  defined,  104,  105. 
Valuable  rights,  not  necessarily  vested,  20,  21. 
Vested  rights,  wliat  are,  22,  65,  67,  319. 

statutes  atibcting,  invalid,  21. 

not  affected  by  cliange  of  domicile,  32. 

under  settlenientsj  216. 


^'* 


748  INDEX. 

Vested  rights —  Coniinued. 

in  wife's  iversonalty,  ?  165. 
in  wife's  realty,  149,  158,  162. 
in  Imsbund's  realty,  262. 
in  honiestjz-ad,  321. 
Violence,  of  husband  towards  wife,  48,  62,  63. 
Visitors,  husband  decides  who  shall  be,  60. 
Void,  contracts  of  married  women  not  voidable  but,  366, 
368. 
improperly  executed  deeds  of  mai-ried  wonien,402- 
404. 
Voluntary  conveyance.    See  Fraudulent  Conveyance. 

ellect  of,  lO'J. 
Wages.    See  Earnings. 
Waiver,  of  constitutional  protection,  21. 
of  homestead  exemption,  321. 
of  wife's  disability  to  testify,  56. 
by  husband  of,  agent  to  wife's  earnings,  65. 
by  husljand  of,  wife's  agent  to  distrain,  85. 
Warranty,  of  married  women,  384. 

inchoate  dower  comes  within,  for  title,  232. 
Waste,  by  husband  on  wife's  lauds,  147,  15S. 

by  doweress,  253,  264. 
Wearing  apparel,  wife's,  186,  187. 
Wedding  ring,  wife's  right  to,  187. 
Whipping  wife,  by  husband,  4S,  63. 
Wife,  defined,  1 ;  when  several  which  is  meant,  51. 
domicile  of,  29. 

relationsnip    of,    towards    her    husband,    38-134; 
unity  with  husband,  3S-o6 ;  conjugal  rights,  lia- 
bilities,  disabilities,   etc.,  57-81 ;    agency,   82-98 ; 
dealings,  99-134. 
estates  of,  in  husband's  realty,  244-300 ;  personalty, 
301  ;  in  her  own  equitable  separate  property,  197- 
216;   statutory  separate   property,  217-243  f  com- 
nmnity,  316  ;  homestead,  329. 
status  of,   generallv,  331-;339 ;  Avills,  340-354  ;   con- 
tracts, 355-393  ;  deeds,  394-408 ;  estoppel,  409-120  ; 
torts,   421-425;    crimes,   426,  427;    suits.   428-463; 
trade,  464-481 ;   in  representative  capacities,  482- 
4S7. 
Wild  lands,  dower  in,  253. 

curtesv  in,  155. 
Will,   of  liusband  as  to  dower,   268,  274;  thirds,  301; 
wife's  chattels  real,  145. 


*v^ 


749 


Will —  Continued. 

of  wife,  (Ji;  50   51,  340-354 ;  at  common  law,  gener- 
ally, 3-li'. 
exception,  342 ;  of  pin  money,  189 ;  under  powers, 
342,  352  ;    in  equity,  343 ;    of  equitable  separate 
l^roperty,  208,  344  ;  under  statutes,  13,  345  ;  of  stat- 
utory separate  estate,  240,  346  ;  validity  and  opera- 
tion distinguished,  347  ;  ettect  of,  or  curtesy,  161 ; 
effect  of  husband's  consent,  3-18  ;  gift  cnusa  mortis, 
350 ;  revocation  of,  57,  351 ;  effect  of  marriage  on 
antenuptial,  57, 352  ;  republication  of,  after  discov- 
erture,  353  ;  conflict  of  laws  as  to,  36,  354. 
between  husband  and  wife,  50,  51,  344,  345,  349. 
"With  reference  to,"  contracts,  property  defined,  239, 

373. 
Witnesses.    See  Eviden-ce. 

liusliand  and  wife  as,  56. 
Writing,  evidence  contracting,  lOS,  119. 
Wrongs.    8ee  Torts. 

/ 


'califo^"^    V 


liih 


U  ^^omvol 


OaLX£<^\ 


^  AA    000  884  540    6 


1^ 

\ 


p 


